vs

Side-by-side financial comparison of Aramark (ARMK) and Yum China Holdings, Inc. (YUMC). Click either name above to swap in a different company.

Aramark is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($4.8B vs $2.8B, roughly 1.7× Yum China Holdings, Inc.). Yum China Holdings, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 5.0% vs 2.0%, a 3.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Yum China Holdings, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (8.8% vs 6.1%). Yum China Holdings, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-116.0M vs $-904.4M). Over the past eight quarters, Aramark's revenue compounded faster (7.3% CAGR vs -2.3%).

Aramark is an American food service and facilities services provider to clients in areas including education, prisons, healthcare, business, and leisure. It operates in North America and an additional 14 countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Chile, Ireland, and Spain.

Yum China Holdings, Inc. is an American-Chinese Fortune 500 fast-food restaurant company based in Shanghai, China. With US$9.5 billion in revenue and 10,600 restaurants worldwide it is one of the largest restaurant companies. It was spun off from Yum! Brands in 2016, becoming an independent, publicly traded company on November 1, 2016. Yum China is a trademark licensee of Yum Brands, paying 3% of total systemwide sales to Yum Brands. It operates 8,484 restaurants in over 1,100 cities located ...

ARMK vs YUMC — Head-to-Head

Bigger by revenue
ARMK
ARMK
1.7× larger
ARMK
$4.8B
$2.8B
YUMC
Growing faster (revenue YoY)
YUMC
YUMC
+2.6% gap
YUMC
8.8%
6.1%
ARMK
Higher net margin
YUMC
YUMC
3.0% more per $
YUMC
5.0%
2.0%
ARMK
More free cash flow
YUMC
YUMC
$788.4M more FCF
YUMC
$-116.0M
$-904.4M
ARMK
Faster 2-yr revenue CAGR
ARMK
ARMK
Annualised
ARMK
7.3%
-2.3%
YUMC

Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q4 2025

Metric
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Revenue
$4.8B
$2.8B
Net Profit
$96.2M
$140.0M
Gross Margin
Operating Margin
4.5%
6.6%
Net Margin
2.0%
5.0%
Revenue YoY
6.1%
8.8%
Net Profit YoY
-9.0%
21.7%
EPS (diluted)
$0.36
$0.40

Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align.

8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend

Side-by-side quarterly history. Quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years line up.

Revenue
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Q1 26
$4.8B
Q4 25
$5.0B
$2.8B
Q3 25
$3.2B
Q2 25
$4.6B
$2.8B
Q1 25
$4.3B
$3.0B
Q4 24
$4.6B
$2.6B
Q3 24
$4.4B
$3.1B
Q2 24
$4.4B
$2.7B
Net Profit
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Q1 26
$96.2M
Q4 25
$87.1M
$140.0M
Q3 25
$282.0M
Q2 25
$71.8M
$215.0M
Q1 25
$61.9M
$292.0M
Q4 24
$105.6M
$115.0M
Q3 24
$122.4M
$297.0M
Q2 24
$58.1M
$212.0M
Operating Margin
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Q1 26
4.5%
Q4 25
4.3%
6.6%
Q3 25
12.5%
Q2 25
3.9%
10.9%
Q1 25
4.1%
13.4%
Q4 24
4.8%
5.8%
Q3 24
5.0%
12.1%
Q2 24
3.7%
9.9%
Net Margin
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Q1 26
2.0%
Q4 25
1.7%
5.0%
Q3 25
8.8%
Q2 25
1.6%
7.7%
Q1 25
1.4%
9.8%
Q4 24
2.3%
4.4%
Q3 24
2.8%
9.7%
Q2 24
1.3%
7.9%
EPS (diluted)
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Q1 26
$0.36
Q4 25
$0.33
$0.40
Q3 25
$0.76
Q2 25
$0.27
$0.58
Q1 25
$0.23
$0.77
Q4 24
$0.39
$0.30
Q3 24
$0.46
$0.77
Q2 24
$0.22
$0.55

Balance Sheet & Financial Strength

Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.

Metric
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand
$439.6M
$1.4B
Total DebtLower is stronger
$6.2B
Stockholders' EquityBook value
$3.2B
$5.4B
Total Assets
$13.5B
$10.8B
Debt / EquityLower = less leverage
1.94×

8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.

Cash + ST Investments
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Q1 26
$439.6M
Q4 25
$639.1M
$1.4B
Q3 25
$2.1B
Q2 25
$501.5M
$2.2B
Q1 25
$920.5M
$2.0B
Q4 24
$484.1M
$1.8B
Q3 24
$672.5M
$2.5B
Q2 24
$436.1M
$2.5B
Total Debt
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Q1 26
$6.2B
Q4 25
$5.4B
Q3 25
Q2 25
$6.3B
Q1 25
$6.1B
Q4 24
$5.0B
Q3 24
$4.3B
Q2 24
$5.0B
Stockholders' Equity
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Q1 26
$3.2B
Q4 25
$3.1B
$5.4B
Q3 25
$5.7B
Q2 25
$3.1B
$5.8B
Q1 25
$3.0B
$5.8B
Q4 24
$3.1B
$5.7B
Q3 24
$3.0B
$6.0B
Q2 24
$2.9B
$5.8B
Total Assets
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Q1 26
$13.5B
Q4 25
$13.3B
$10.8B
Q3 25
$11.0B
Q2 25
$13.3B
$11.0B
Q1 25
$13.5B
$11.0B
Q4 24
$12.7B
$11.1B
Q3 24
$12.7B
$11.8B
Q2 24
$12.5B
$11.6B
Debt / Equity
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Q1 26
1.94×
Q4 25
1.71×
Q3 25
Q2 25
2.03×
Q1 25
2.02×
Q4 24
1.61×
Q3 24
1.42×
Q2 24
1.71×

Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency

How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Cash flow is harder to manipulate than net income.

Metric
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Operating Cash FlowLast quarter
$-782.2M
$125.0M
Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex
$-904.4M
$-116.0M
FCF MarginFCF / Revenue
-18.7%
-4.1%
Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue
2.5%
8.5%
Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit
-8.13×
0.89×
TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters
$840.0M

8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.

Operating Cash Flow
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Q1 26
$-782.2M
Q4 25
$125.0M
Q3 25
$477.0M
Q2 25
$76.7M
$412.0M
Q1 25
$255.9M
$452.0M
Q4 24
$-587.2M
$167.0M
Q3 24
$1.0B
$409.0M
Q2 24
$140.7M
$401.0M
Free Cash Flow
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Q1 26
$-904.4M
Q4 25
$-116.0M
Q3 25
$351.0M
Q2 25
$-34.7M
$290.0M
Q1 25
$140.1M
$315.0M
Q4 24
$-707.0M
$-15.0M
Q3 24
$882.3M
$244.0M
Q2 24
$55.6M
$232.0M
FCF Margin
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Q1 26
-18.7%
Q4 25
-4.1%
Q3 25
10.9%
Q2 25
-0.8%
10.4%
Q1 25
3.3%
10.6%
Q4 24
-15.5%
-0.6%
Q3 24
20.0%
7.9%
Q2 24
1.3%
8.7%
Capex Intensity
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Q1 26
2.5%
Q4 25
2.8%
8.5%
Q3 25
3.9%
Q2 25
2.4%
4.4%
Q1 25
2.7%
4.6%
Q4 24
2.6%
7.0%
Q3 24
3.2%
5.4%
Q2 24
1.9%
6.3%
Cash Conversion
ARMK
ARMK
YUMC
YUMC
Q1 26
-8.13×
Q4 25
0.89×
Q3 25
1.69×
Q2 25
1.07×
1.92×
Q1 25
4.14×
1.55×
Q4 24
-5.56×
1.45×
Q3 24
8.35×
1.38×
Q2 24
2.42×
1.89×

Financial Flow Comparison

Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.

Revenue Breakdown by Segment

ARMK
ARMK

Education$1.1B22%
Sports Leisure Corrections$961.2M20%
Food And Support Services International$847.8M18%
Other$621.6M13%
Businessand Industry$510.6M11%
Health Care$421.3M9%
Facility Services$382.9M8%

YUMC
YUMC

Revenue From External Customers$2.1B75%
Pizza Hut$540.0M19%
Corporate And Unallocated$105.0M4%
Other Revenue$45.0M2%
Franchise Fees And Income$25.0M1%

Related Comparisons