Restaurants
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
SG vs CAVA vs CMG vs SHAK vs TXRH
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Restaurants
Restaurants
Restaurants
Restaurants
SG vs CAVA vs CMG vs SHAK vs TXRH — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Restaurants | Restaurants | Restaurants | Restaurants | Restaurants |
| Market Cap | $816M | $9.82B | $43.33B | $2.79B | $10.41B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $675M | $848M | $12.14B | $1.49B | $6.06B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $17M | $38M | $1.45B | $41M | $415M |
| Gross Margin | 10.9% | 67.4% | 36.1% | 7.5% | 18.7% |
| Operating Margin | -19.1% | 4.7% | 15.8% | 4.3% | 8.2% |
| Forward P/E | — | 161.5x | 29.3x | 50.2x | 25.0x |
| Total Debt | $354M | $466M | $9.85B | $902M | $1.89B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $89M | $283M | $351M | $360M | $135M |
SG vs CAVA vs CMG vs SHAK vs TXRH — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 23 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sweetgreen, Inc. (SG) | 100 | 53.6 | -46.4% |
| CAVA Group, Inc. (CAVA) | 100 | 206.4 | +106.4% |
| Chipotle Mexican Gr… (CMG) | 100 | 77.8 | -22.2% |
| Shake Shack Inc. (SHAK) | 100 | 89.1 | -10.9% |
| Texas Roadhouse, In… (TXRH) | 100 | 140.7 | +40.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: SG vs CAVA vs CMG vs SHAK vs TXRH
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
SG lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
Among these 5 stocks, CAVA doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
CMG carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.83 vs TXRH's 1.17
- Lower P/E (29.3x vs 50.2x)
- 12.0% margin vs SG's 2.5%
- 16.0% ROA vs SG's 2.0%, ROIC 15.3% vs -14.1%
SHAK ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure and defensive.
- Rev growth 15.4%, EPS growth 354.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 17.1%
- Beta 1.75, current ratio 1.76x
- 15.4% revenue growth vs CAVA's -12.0%
TXRH is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Dividend streak 5 yrs, beta 0.70, yield 1.7%
- 288.0% 10Y total return vs CMG's 267.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.70, current ratio 0.50x
- Beta 0.70 vs SG's 1.95
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 15.4% revenue growth vs CAVA's -12.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (29.3x vs 50.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 12.0% margin vs SG's 2.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.70 vs SG's 1.95 | |
| Dividends | 1.7% yield; 5-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | -6.2% vs SG's -61.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 16.0% ROA vs SG's 2.0%, ROIC 15.3% vs -14.1% |
SG vs CAVA vs CMG vs SHAK vs TXRH — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
SG vs CAVA vs CMG vs SHAK vs TXRH — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CMG leads in 2 of 6 categories
CAVA leads 1 • TXRH leads 1 • SG leads 0 • SHAK leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CMG leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CMG is the larger business by revenue, generating $12.1B annually — 18.0x SG's $675M. CMG is the more profitable business, keeping 12.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to SG's 2.5%. On growth, SHAK holds the edge at +14.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $675M | $848M | $12.1B | $1.5B | $6.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$54M | $113M | $2.3B | $173M | $709M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $17M | $38M | $1.5B | $41M | $415M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$121M | $26M | $1.5B | $16M | $441M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +10.9% | +67.4% | +36.1% | +7.5% | +18.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -19.1% | +4.7% | +15.8% | +4.3% | +8.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +2.5% | +4.5% | +12.0% | +2.8% | +6.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -17.9% | +3.1% | +12.4% | +1.1% | +7.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -2.9% | -125.0% | +7.4% | +14.3% | +12.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +6.0% | -127.3% | -17.9% | -110.0% | +10.0% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — SG and TXRH each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 25.9x trailing earnings, TXRH trades at a 83% valuation discount to CAVA's 156.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), TXRH offers better value at 0.38x vs CMG's 0.82x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $816M | $9.8B | $43.3B | $2.8B | $10.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.1B | $10.0B | $52.8B | $3.3B | $12.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -6.03x | 156.52x | 29.18x | 63.53x | 25.89x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 161.48x | 29.29x | 50.21x | 25.05x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.82x | — | 0.38x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 77.54x | 22.25x | 17.31x | 17.15x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.20x | 11.58x | 3.63x | 1.93x | 1.77x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.28x | 12.79x | 15.78x | 5.23x | 7.09x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 375.47x | 29.93x | 49.34x | 30.44x |
Profitability & Efficiency
CMG leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CMG delivers a 48.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $48 in annual profit, vs $4 for SG. CAVA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.60x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CMG's 3.48x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), SHAK scores 7/9 vs SG's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +4.0% | +4.9% | +48.4% | +7.6% | +37.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.0% | +2.8% | +16.0% | +2.2% | +12.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -14.1% | +5.0% | +15.3% | +6.0% | +14.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -15.8% | +4.9% | +25.4% | +5.4% | +20.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.00x | 0.60x | 3.48x | 1.63x | 1.27x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $265M | $183M | $9.5B | $542M | $1.8B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $89M | $283M | $351M | $360M | $135M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $354M | $466M | $9.8B | $902M | $1.9B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -2320.23x | — | — | 16.87x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CAVA leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CAVA five years ago would be worth $19,306 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,388 for SG. Over the past 12 months, TXRH leads with a -6.2% total return vs SG's -61.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CAVA at 24.5% vs SG's -9.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -0.9% | +39.6% | -11.3% | -17.0% | -7.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -61.6% | -9.9% | -35.6% | -32.1% | -6.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -24.8% | +93.1% | -18.2% | +3.5% | +53.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -86.1% | +93.1% | +16.7% | -22.6% | +61.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -86.1% | +93.1% | +267.2% | +98.2% | +288.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -9.1% | +24.5% | -6.5% | +1.1% | +15.4% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CAVA and TXRH each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
TXRH is the less volatile stock with a 0.70 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than SG's 1.95 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CAVA currently trades 83.3% from its 52-week high vs SG's 36.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.95x | 1.83x | 1.11x | 1.75x | 0.70x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $18.63 | $101.50 | $58.42 | $144.65 | $199.99 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.49 | $43.41 | $29.75 | $67.20 | $153.82 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +36.9% | +83.3% | +56.9% | +47.9% | +79.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 57.9 | 50.9 | 43.0 | 48.0 | 45.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 4.1M | 2.8M | 14.5M | 1.5M | 983K |
Analyst Outlook
TXRH leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: SG as "Hold", CAVA as "Buy", CMG as "Buy", SHAK as "Hold", TXRH as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 74.6% upside for SHAK (target: $121) vs -2.2% for CAVA (target: $83). TXRH is the only dividend payer here at 1.72% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $7.51 | $82.63 | $43.72 | $120.89 | $191.64 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 15 | 23 | 67 | 35 | 43 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | +1.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | 0 | 5 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | $2.71 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +5.6% | 0.0% | +1.4% |
CMG leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). CAVA leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
SG vs CAVA vs CMG vs SHAK vs TXRH: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is SG or CAVA or CMG or SHAK or TXRH a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Shake Shack Inc.
(SHAK) is the stronger pick with 15. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -12. 0% for CAVA Group, Inc. (CAVA). Texas Roadhouse, Inc. (TXRH) offers the better valuation at 25. 9x trailing P/E (25. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate CAVA Group, Inc. (CAVA) a "Buy" — based on 23 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 — SG or CAVA or CMG or SHAK or TXRH?
On trailing P/E, Texas Roadhouse, Inc.
(TXRH) is the cheapest at 25. 9x versus CAVA Group, Inc. at 156. 5x. On forward P/E, Texas Roadhouse, Inc. is actually cheaper at 25. 0x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. wins at 0. 83x versus Texas Roadhouse, Inc. 's 1. 17x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — SG or CAVA or CMG or SHAK or TXRH?
Over the past 5 years, CAVA Group, Inc.
(CAVA) delivered a total return of +93. 1%, compared to -86. 1% for Sweetgreen, Inc. (SG). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TXRH returned +288. 0% versus SG's -86. 1%. 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 — SG or CAVA or CMG or SHAK or TXRH?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Texas Roadhouse, Inc.
(TXRH) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 70β versus Sweetgreen, Inc. 's 1. 95β — meaning SG is approximately 180% more volatile than TXRH relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, CAVA Group, Inc. (CAVA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 60% versus 3% for Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — SG or CAVA or CMG or SHAK or TXRH?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Shake Shack Inc.
(SHAK) is pulling ahead at 15. 4% versus -12. 0% for CAVA Group, Inc. (CAVA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Shake Shack Inc. grew EPS 354. 2% year-over-year, compared to -50. 9% for CAVA Group, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, SHAK leads at 17. 1% 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 — SG or CAVA or CMG or SHAK or TXRH?
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
(CMG) is the more profitable company, earning 12. 9% net margin versus -19. 7% for Sweetgreen, Inc. — meaning it keeps 12. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CMG leads at 16. 9% versus -16. 4% for SG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CAVA leads at 67. 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 SG or CAVA or CMG or SHAK or TXRH 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, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (CMG) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 83x versus Texas Roadhouse, Inc. 's 1. 17x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Texas Roadhouse, Inc. (TXRH) trades at 25. 0x forward P/E versus 161. 5x for CAVA Group, Inc. — 136. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SHAK: 74. 6% to $120. 89.
08Which pays a better dividend — SG or CAVA or CMG or SHAK or TXRH?
In this comparison, TXRH (1.
7% yield) pays a dividend. SG, CAVA, CMG, SHAK do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is SG or CAVA or CMG or SHAK or TXRH better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Texas Roadhouse, Inc.
(TXRH) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 70), 1. 7% yield, +288. 0% 10Y return). Sweetgreen, Inc. (SG) carries a higher beta of 1. 95 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (TXRH: +288. 0%, SG: -86. 1%), 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 SG and CAVA and CMG and SHAK and TXRH?
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: SG is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CAVA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CMG is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; SHAK is a small-cap high-growth stock; TXRH is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. TXRH pays a dividend while SG, CAVA, CMG, SHAK 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.