Restaurants
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
RICK vs AMZN vs MSFT vs PLAY vs KO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Retail
Software - Infrastructure
Entertainment
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
RICK vs AMZN vs MSFT vs PLAY vs KO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Restaurants | Specialty Retail | Software - Infrastructure | Entertainment | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $216M | $2.63T | $2.82T | $416M | $341.71B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $282M | $742.78B | $318.27B | $2.09B | $49.28B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-7M | $90.80B | $125.22B | $-65M | $13.70B |
| Gross Margin | 55.2% | 50.6% | 68.3% | 66.8% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | 12.3% | 11.5% | 46.8% | 4.3% | 29.3% |
| Forward P/E | 4.6x | 27.8x | 22.6x | 94.6x | 24.3x |
| Total Debt | $266M | $152.99B | $112.18B | $3.17B | $45.49B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $34M | $86.81B | $30.24B | $17M | $10.27B |
RICK vs AMZN vs MSFT vs PLAY vs KO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| RCI Hospitality Hol… (RICK) | 100 | 204.0 | +104.0% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) | 100 | 177.2 | +77.2% |
| Microsoft Corporati… (MSFT) | 100 | 186.4 | +86.4% |
| Dave & Buster's Ent… (PLAY) | 100 | 89.6 | -10.4% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 177.7 | +77.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: RICK vs AMZN vs MSFT vs PLAY vs KO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
RICK ranks third and is worth considering specifically for value.
- Lower P/E (4.6x vs 24.3x)
AMZN is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.99 vs KO's 2.17
MSFT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 14.9%, EPS growth 15.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 12.4%
- 7.1% 10Y total return vs AMZN's 5.8%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.88, Low D/E 32.7%, current ratio 1.35x
- Beta 0.88, yield 0.9%, current ratio 1.35x
Among these 5 stocks, PLAY doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
KO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability is your priority.
- Dividend streak 56 yrs, beta -0.23, yield 2.6%
- 2.6% yield, 56-year raise streak, vs RICK's 1.0%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
- +17.7% vs PLAY's -62.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 14.9% revenue growth vs RICK's -5.5% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (4.6x vs 24.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 39.3% margin vs PLAY's -3.1% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.88 vs PLAY's 1.80, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.6% yield, 56-year raise streak, vs RICK's 1.0%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +17.7% vs PLAY's -62.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 19.2% ROA vs PLAY's -1.6%, ROIC 24.9% vs 2.4% |
RICK vs AMZN vs MSFT vs PLAY vs KO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
RICK vs AMZN vs MSFT vs PLAY vs KO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MSFT leads in 2 of 6 categories
KO leads 2 • RICK leads 1 • AMZN leads 0 • PLAY leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MSFT leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AMZN is the larger business by revenue, generating $742.8B annually — 2637.5x RICK's $282M. MSFT is the more profitable business, keeping 39.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to PLAY's -3.1%. On growth, MSFT holds the edge at +18.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $282M | $742.8B | $318.3B | $2.1B | $49.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $51M | $155.9B | $192.6B | $377M | $15.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$7M | $90.8B | $125.2B | -$65M | $13.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $39M | -$2.5B | $72.9B | -$33M | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +55.2% | +50.6% | +68.3% | +66.8% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +12.3% | +11.5% | +46.8% | +4.3% | +29.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -2.3% | +12.2% | +39.3% | -3.1% | +27.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +14.0% | -0.3% | +22.9% | -1.6% | +25.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +4.3% | +16.6% | +18.3% | -1.5% | +12.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -111.1% | +74.8% | +23.4% | -74.2% | +18.2% |
Valuation Metrics
RICK leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 23.0x trailing earnings, RICK trades at a 33% valuation discount to AMZN's 34.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), AMZN offers better value at 1.22x vs KO's 2.34x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $216M | $2.63T | $2.82T | $416M | $341.7B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $449M | $2.69T | $2.90T | $3.6B | $376.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 22.98x | 34.09x | 27.82x | -8.54x | 26.12x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 4.63x | 27.78x | 22.58x | 94.62x | 24.27x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.22x | 1.48x | — | 2.34x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 8.75x | 18.49x | 17.83x | 9.27x | 25.45x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.77x | 3.67x | 10.00x | 0.20x | 7.13x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.96x | 6.44x | 8.25x | 4.54x | 9.99x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 6.19x | 341.55x | 39.36x | — | 64.52x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MSFT leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 in annual profit, vs $-53 for PLAY. MSFT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.33x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to PLAY's 34.71x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), KO scores 7/9 vs PLAY's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -2.6% | +23.3% | +33.1% | -53.1% | +41.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -1.1% | +11.5% | +19.2% | -1.6% | +13.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +5.5% | +14.7% | +24.9% | +2.4% | +15.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +6.8% | +15.3% | +29.7% | +2.9% | +17.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.02x | 0.37x | 0.33x | 34.71x | 1.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $233M | $66.2B | $81.9B | $3.1B | $35.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $34M | $86.8B | $30.2B | $17M | $10.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $266M | $153.0B | $112.2B | $3.2B | $45.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.39x | 39.96x | 55.65x | 0.46x | 10.70x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — AMZN and KO each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in KO five years ago would be worth $16,528 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,012 for PLAY. Over the past 12 months, KO leads with a +17.7% total return vs PLAY's -62.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AMZN at 24.8% vs PLAY's -34.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +21.3% | +7.9% | -19.4% | -29.9% | +16.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -27.7% | +15.0% | -20.3% | -62.7% | +17.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -62.3% | +94.3% | +15.1% | -71.6% | +39.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -53.5% | +40.2% | +52.0% | -69.9% | +65.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +188.5% | +584.6% | +705.9% | -73.0% | +115.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -27.7% | +24.8% | +4.8% | -34.3% | +11.7% |
Risk & Volatility
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.23 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than PLAY's 1.80 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. KO currently trades 94.5% from its 52-week high vs PLAY's 33.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.33x | 1.46x | 0.88x | 1.80x | -0.23x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $41.37 | $278.56 | $555.45 | $35.53 | $84.04 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $20.76 | $197.28 | $356.28 | $9.65 | $65.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +68.3% | +87.7% | +68.3% | +33.6% | +94.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 67.2 | 36.9 | 34.6 | 44.2 | 49.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 47K | 43.7M | 34.8M | 1.8M | 13.6M |
Analyst Outlook
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: RICK as "Buy", AMZN as "Buy", MSFT as "Buy", PLAY as "Buy", KO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 246.7% upside for RICK (target: $98) vs 8.5% for KO (target: $86). For income investors, KO offers the higher dividend yield at 2.56% vs MSFT's 0.85%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $98.00 | $307.77 | $551.96 | $17.33 | $86.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 3 | 94 | 82 | 20 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +1.0% | — | +0.9% | — | +2.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 7 | — | 21 | 0 | 56 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.28 | — | $3.23 | — | $2.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +5.5% | 0.0% | +0.7% | +0.4% | +0.2% |
MSFT leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). KO leads in 2 (Risk & Volatility, Analyst Outlook). 1 tied.
RICK vs AMZN vs MSFT vs PLAY vs KO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is RICK or AMZN or MSFT or PLAY or KO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the stronger pick with 14.
9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -5. 5% for RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (RICK). RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (RICK) offers the better valuation at 23. 0x trailing P/E (4. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (RICK) a "Buy" — based on 3 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 — RICK or AMZN or MSFT or PLAY or KO?
On trailing P/E, RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc.
(RICK) is the cheapest at 23. 0x versus Amazon. com, Inc. at 34. 1x. On forward P/E, RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. is actually cheaper at 4. 6x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Amazon. com, Inc. wins at 0. 99x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 17x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — RICK or AMZN or MSFT or PLAY or KO?
Over the past 5 years, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) delivered a total return of +65.
3%, compared to -69. 9% for Dave & Buster's Entertainment, Inc. (PLAY). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MSFT returned +705. 9% versus PLAY's -73. 0%. 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 — RICK or AMZN or MSFT or PLAY or KO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
23β versus Dave & Buster's Entertainment, Inc. 's 1. 80β — meaning PLAY is approximately -869% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 33% versus 35% for Dave & Buster's Entertainment, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — RICK or AMZN or MSFT or PLAY or KO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is pulling ahead at 14.
9% versus -5. 5% for RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (RICK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. grew EPS 272. 7% year-over-year, compared to -195. 9% for Dave & Buster's Entertainment, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MSFT leads at 12. 4% 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 — RICK or AMZN or MSFT or PLAY or KO?
Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the more profitable company, earning 36.
1% net margin versus -2. 3% for Dave & Buster's Entertainment, Inc. — meaning it keeps 36. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MSFT leads at 45. 6% versus 5. 0% for PLAY. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — PLAY leads at 85. 7%, 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 RICK or AMZN or MSFT or PLAY or KO 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, Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 99x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 17x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (RICK) trades at 4. 6x forward P/E versus 94. 6x for Dave & Buster's Entertainment, Inc. — 90. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for RICK: 246. 7% to $98. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — RICK or AMZN or MSFT or PLAY or KO?
In this comparison, KO (2.
6% yield), RICK (1. 0% yield), MSFT (0. 9% yield) pay a dividend. AMZN, PLAY do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is RICK or AMZN or MSFT or PLAY or KO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
23), 2. 6% yield, +115. 0% 10Y return). Dave & Buster's Entertainment, Inc. (PLAY) carries a higher beta of 1. 80 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +115. 0%, PLAY: -73. 0%), 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 RICK and AMZN and MSFT and PLAY and KO?
These companies operate in different sectors (RICK (Consumer Cyclical) and AMZN (Consumer Cyclical) and MSFT (Technology) and PLAY (Communication Services) and KO (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
RICK, MSFT, KO pay a dividend while AMZN, PLAY 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.