Restaurant Brands International vs Yum China
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Restaurant Brands International and Yum China side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- Yum China is the larger business, with $11.8B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $9.4B for Restaurant Brands International.
- Restaurant Brands International grew revenue faster (12.2%, against 4.4%).
- Restaurant Brands International kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (23.3% operating margin, against 10.9%).
- Restaurant Brands International turned more of its sales into free cash flow (15.4% FCF margin, against 7.1%).
- Investors pay more for each dollar of Restaurant Brands International’s earnings: a P/E of 20.0x against 16.7x for Yum China.
Who comes out ahead
Of the 7 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Restaurant Brands International
QSR
6/7
Revenue growth5-year growthOperating marginNet marginFCF marginReturn on equity
Yum China
YUMC
1/7
Share count change
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | QSR FY25 | YUMC FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $34.3B | $15.9B |
| Revenue | $9.4B | $11.8B |
| Free cash flow | $1.4B | $840M |
| Net income | $1.1B | $929M |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | 12.2% | 4.4% |
| 5-year growth | 13.7% | 7.4% |
| Share count change | 0.7% | −4.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | — | — |
| Operating margin | 23.3% | 10.9% |
| Net margin | 11.4% | 7.9% |
| FCF margin | 15.4% | 7.1% |
| Return on capital | 9.0% | — |
| Return on equity | 31.9% | 16.7% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $12.4B | — |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.0x | — |
| Dividends and buybacks | $1.1B | $1.5B |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 20.0x | 16.7x |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | — |
Ten years
Revenue
Operating margin
Free cash flow
Return on capital
Each company's latest fiscal year; fiscal years end in different months. The best value in each row is highlighted where higher (or lower) is clearly better. Not investment advice.