Restaurants
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
RRGB vs MCD vs DENN vs QSR vs EAT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Restaurants
Restaurants
Restaurants
Restaurants
RRGB vs MCD vs DENN vs QSR vs EAT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Restaurants | Restaurants | Restaurants | Restaurants | Restaurants |
| Market Cap | $81M | $201.63B | $322M | $27.42B | $6.27B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.21B | $27.45B | $457M | $9.59B | $5.73B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-23M | $8.68B | $10M | $955M | $463M |
| Gross Margin | 26.8% | 44.1% | 43.8% | 33.1% | 46.0% |
| Operating Margin | 0.2% | 46.3% | 8.4% | 25.1% | 10.4% |
| Forward P/E | — | 21.5x | 15.0x | 19.5x | 13.7x |
| Total Debt | $514M | $54.81B | $408M | $17.58B | $1.69B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $20M | $774M | $2M | $1.16B | $19M |
RRGB vs MCD vs DENN vs QSR vs EAT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red Robin Gourmet B… (RRGB) | 100 | 26.5 | -73.5% |
| McDonald's Corporat… (MCD) | 100 | 152.2 | +52.2% |
| Denny's Corporation (DENN) | 100 | 57.4 | -42.6% |
| Restaurant Brands I… (QSR) | 100 | 145.1 | +45.1% |
| Brinker Internation… (EAT) | 100 | 555.2 | +455.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: RRGB vs MCD vs DENN vs QSR vs EAT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
RRGB lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
MCD carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for quality and stability.
- 31.6% margin vs RRGB's -1.9%
- Beta 0.11 vs RRGB's 2.10
- 2.5% yield, 27-year raise streak, vs QSR's 3.1%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
DENN ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +39.8% vs MCD's -8.6%
QSR is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 14 yrs, beta 0.39, yield 3.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.39, current ratio 0.98x
- Beta 0.39, yield 3.1%, current ratio 0.98x
EAT is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 21.9%, EPS growth 144.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 12.3%
- 229.9% 10Y total return vs MCD's 157.7%
- PEG 0.20 vs MCD's 2.81
- 21.9% revenue growth vs RRGB's -3.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 21.9% revenue growth vs RRGB's -3.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (13.7x vs 19.5x), PEG 0.20 vs 2.44 | |
| Quality / Margins | 31.6% margin vs RRGB's -1.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.11 vs RRGB's 2.10 | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield, 27-year raise streak, vs QSR's 3.1%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +39.8% vs MCD's -8.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 17.0% ROA vs RRGB's -4.1%, ROIC 19.1% vs 0.5% |
RRGB vs MCD vs DENN vs QSR vs EAT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
RRGB vs MCD vs DENN vs QSR vs EAT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
EAT leads in 2 of 6 categories
MCD leads 1 • RRGB leads 1 • DENN leads 0 • QSR leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MCD leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MCD is the larger business by revenue, generating $27.4B annually — 60.0x DENN's $457M. MCD is the more profitable business, keeping 31.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to RRGB's -1.9%. On growth, MCD holds the edge at +9.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.2B | $27.4B | $457M | $9.6B | $5.7B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $54M | $14.4B | $55M | $2.6B | $819M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$23M | $8.7B | $10M | $955M | $463M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $6M | $7.2B | $2M | $1.5B | $504M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +26.8% | +44.1% | +43.8% | +33.1% | +46.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +0.2% | +46.3% | +8.4% | +25.1% | +10.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -1.9% | +31.6% | +2.2% | +10.0% | +8.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +0.5% | +26.2% | +0.5% | +15.8% | +8.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -5.7% | +9.4% | +1.3% | +7.3% | +3.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +77.4% | +6.9% | -89.9% | +102.1% | +12.1% |
Valuation Metrics
RRGB leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 15.2x trailing earnings, DENN trades at a 55% valuation discount to QSR's 33.7x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), EAT offers better value at 0.26x vs QSR's 4.21x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $81M | $201.6B | $322M | $27.4B | $6.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $575M | $255.7B | $728M | $43.8B | $7.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -2.80x | 23.74x | 15.24x | 33.68x | 17.58x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 21.51x | 15.02x | 19.50x | 13.66x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.74x | — | 4.21x | 0.26x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.66x | 17.57x | 12.10x | 17.81x | 11.06x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.07x | 7.50x | 0.71x | 2.91x | 1.17x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | — | — | 7.01x | 18.18x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 13.00x | 28.06x | 350.62x | 18.93x | 15.17x |
Profitability & Efficiency
EAT leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
EAT delivers a 123.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $123 in annual profit, vs $18 for QSR. QSR carries lower financial leverage with a 3.41x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to EAT's 4.57x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MCD scores 7/9 vs RRGB's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | — | — | +18.4% | +123.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -4.1% | +14.5% | +2.0% | +3.8% | +17.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +0.5% | +18.7% | +9.7% | +8.2% | +19.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +0.7% | +23.3% | +11.9% | +9.9% | +25.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | — | — | 3.41x | 4.57x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $494M | $54.0B | $406M | $16.4B | $1.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $20M | $774M | $2M | $1.2B | $19M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $514M | $54.8B | $408M | $17.6B | $1.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.26x | 6.09x | 1.73x | 3.65x | 18.61x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
EAT leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in EAT five years ago would be worth $22,577 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,032 for RRGB. Over the past 12 months, DENN leads with a +39.8% total return vs MCD's -8.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors EAT at 58.2% vs RRGB's -33.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -11.4% | -5.8% | +0.6% | +17.7% | -3.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +34.9% | -8.6% | +39.8% | +20.3% | +5.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -70.5% | +2.5% | -41.3% | +19.0% | +295.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -89.7% | +34.3% | -64.9% | +30.3% | +125.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -94.4% | +157.7% | -42.9% | +132.2% | +229.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -33.4% | +0.8% | -16.3% | +6.0% | +58.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MCD and DENN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MCD is the less volatile stock with a 0.11 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than RRGB's 2.10 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. DENN currently trades 99.8% from its 52-week high vs RRGB's 46.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.10x | 0.11x | 0.65x | 0.39x | 1.12x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $7.89 | $341.75 | $6.26 | $81.96 | $187.12 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $2.46 | $282.15 | $3.36 | $61.33 | $100.30 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +46.5% | +83.0% | +99.8% | +96.6% | +78.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 51.6 | 30.9 | 66.9 | 47.4 | 50.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 384K | 3.0M | 0 | 3.3M | 1.2M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — MCD and QSR each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: RRGB as "Hold", MCD as "Buy", DENN as "Buy", QSR as "Buy", EAT as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 90.7% upside for RRGB (target: $7) vs -4.0% for DENN (target: $6). For income investors, QSR offers the higher dividend yield at 3.06% vs MCD's 2.52%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $7.00 | $352.25 | $6.00 | $83.71 | $184.46 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 38 | 62 | 21 | 44 | 47 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +2.5% | — | +3.1% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 27 | 0 | 14 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $7.14 | — | $2.42 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.0% | +3.6% | 0.0% | +1.4% |
EAT leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). MCD leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
RRGB vs MCD vs DENN vs QSR vs EAT: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is RRGB or MCD or DENN or QSR or EAT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Brinker International, Inc.
(EAT) is the stronger pick with 21. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -3. 1% for Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (RRGB). Denny's Corporation (DENN) offers the better valuation at 15. 2x trailing P/E (15. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate McDonald's Corporation (MCD) a "Buy" — based on 62 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — RRGB or MCD or DENN or QSR or EAT?
On trailing P/E, Denny's Corporation (DENN) is the cheapest at 15.
2x versus Restaurant Brands International Inc. at 33. 7x. On forward P/E, Brinker International, Inc. is actually cheaper at 13. 7x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Brinker International, Inc. wins at 0. 20x versus McDonald's Corporation's 2. 81x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — RRGB or MCD or DENN or QSR or EAT?
Over the past 5 years, Brinker International, Inc.
(EAT) delivered a total return of +125. 8%, compared to -89. 7% for Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (RRGB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: EAT returned +229. 9% versus RRGB's -94. 4%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — RRGB or MCD or DENN or QSR or EAT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), McDonald's Corporation (MCD) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
11β versus Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. 's 2. 10β — meaning RRGB is approximately 1782% more volatile than MCD relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Restaurant Brands International Inc. (QSR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 5% for Brinker International, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — RRGB or MCD or DENN or QSR or EAT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Brinker International, Inc.
(EAT) is pulling ahead at 21. 9% versus -3. 1% for Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (RRGB). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Brinker International, Inc. grew EPS 144. 7% year-over-year, compared to -26. 1% for Restaurant Brands International Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, QSR leads at 13. 2% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — RRGB or MCD or DENN or QSR or EAT?
McDonald's Corporation (MCD) is the more profitable company, earning 31.
9% net margin versus -1. 9% for Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. — meaning it keeps 31. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MCD leads at 46. 1% versus 0. 2% for RRGB. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — DENN leads at 73. 4%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is RRGB or MCD or DENN or QSR or EAT more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Brinker International, Inc. (EAT) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 20x versus McDonald's Corporation's 2. 81x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Brinker International, Inc. (EAT) trades at 13. 7x forward P/E versus 21. 5x for McDonald's Corporation — 7. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for RRGB: 90. 7% to $7. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — RRGB or MCD or DENN or QSR or EAT?
In this comparison, QSR (3.
1% yield), MCD (2. 5% yield) pay a dividend. RRGB, DENN, EAT do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is RRGB or MCD or DENN or QSR or EAT better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, McDonald's Corporation (MCD) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
11), 2. 5% yield, +157. 7% 10Y return). Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (RRGB) carries a higher beta of 2. 10 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (MCD: +157. 7%, RRGB: -94. 4%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between RRGB and MCD and DENN and QSR and EAT?
Both stocks operate in the Consumer Cyclical sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: RRGB is a small-cap quality compounder stock; MCD is a large-cap quality compounder stock; DENN is a small-cap deep-value stock; QSR is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; EAT is a small-cap high-growth stock. MCD, QSR pay a dividend while RRGB, DENN, EAT do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.