YUMC vs QSR

For growth investors, Restaurant Brands International Inc.

(QSR) is the stronger pick with 12. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 4. 4% for Yum China Holdings, Inc. (YUMC). Yum China Holdings, Inc. (YUMC) offers the better valuation at 19. 2x trailing P/E (16. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Yum China Holdings, Inc. (YUMC) a "Buy" — based on 19 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.

On trailing P/E, Yum China Holdings, Inc.

(YUMC) is the cheapest at 19. 2x versus Restaurant Brands International Inc. at 33. 7x. On forward P/E, Yum China Holdings, Inc. is actually cheaper at 16. 6x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Restaurant Brands International Inc. wins at 2. 44x versus Yum China Holdings, Inc. 's 3. 27x.

Over the past 5 years, Restaurant Brands International Inc.

(QSR) delivered a total return of +30. 3%, compared to -17. 3% for Yum China Holdings, Inc. (YUMC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: QSR returned +132. 2% versus YUMC's +105. 5%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Restaurant Brands International Inc.

(QSR) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 39β versus Yum China Holdings, Inc. 's 0. 63β — meaning YUMC is approximately 60% more volatile than QSR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Yum China Holdings, Inc. (YUMC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 38% versus 3% for Restaurant Brands International Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Restaurant Brands International Inc.

(QSR) is pulling ahead at 12. 2% versus 4. 4% for Yum China Holdings, Inc. (YUMC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Yum China Holdings, Inc. grew EPS 6. 8% 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.

Restaurant Brands International Inc.

(QSR) is the more profitable company, earning 8. 2% net margin versus 7. 9% for Yum China Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 8. 2% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: QSR leads at 23. 7% versus 12. 4% for YUMC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — QSR leads at 41. 1%, 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.

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, Restaurant Brands International Inc. (QSR) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 2. 44x versus Yum China Holdings, Inc. 's 3. 27x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Yum China Holdings, Inc. (YUMC) trades at 16. 6x forward P/E versus 19. 5x for Restaurant Brands International Inc. — 2. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for YUMC: 22. 7% to $59. 05.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Restaurant Brands International Inc. (QSR) offers the highest yield at 3. 1%, versus 2. 0% for Yum China Holdings, Inc. (YUMC).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Restaurant Brands International Inc.

(QSR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 39), 3. 1% yield, +132. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (QSR: +132. 2%, YUMC: +105. 5%), 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.

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: YUMC is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; QSR is a mid-cap income-oriented stock. 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.