vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Brookfield Wealth Solutions Ltd. (BNT) and Yum China Holdings, Inc. (YUMC). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Brookfield Wealth Solutions Ltd. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.0B vs $2.8B, roughly 1.1× Yum China Holdings, Inc.). Brookfield Wealth Solutions Ltd. runs the higher net margin — 17.0% vs 5.0%, a 12.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Yum China Holdings, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (8.8% vs 4.7%).
Brookfield Corporation is a Canadian multinational company that is one of the world's largest alternative investment management companies. It has over US$1 trillion of assets under management, much of which is workers’ deferred income from global public pension funds. It focuses on direct control investments in real estate, renewable power, infrastructure, credit and private equity. The company invests in distressed securities through Oaktree Capital, which it bought in 2019. Brookfield Corp...
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 ...
BNT vs YUMC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.0B | $2.8B |
| Net Profit | $516.0M | $140.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 20.0% | 6.6% |
| Net Margin | 17.0% | 5.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 4.7% | 8.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | 91.8% | 21.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $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.
| Q4 25 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.0B | $2.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.9B | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $3.0B |
| Q4 25 | — | $140.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $282.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $516.0M | $215.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $292.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $115.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $297.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $269.0M | $212.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $287.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 12.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.0% | 10.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 13.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 5.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 12.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -1.0% | 9.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 12.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | 5.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 8.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.0% | 7.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 9.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 4.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 9.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.3% | 7.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 9.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.40 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.76 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.58 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.77 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.30 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.77 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0.55 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $0.71 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $17.5B | $1.4B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $15.8B | $5.4B |
| Total Assets | $148.9B | $10.8B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $17.5B | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $17.2B | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.4B |
| Q4 25 | — | $5.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $5.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $15.8B | $5.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $5.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $5.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $6.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.0B | $5.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $5.9B |
| Q4 25 | — | $10.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $11.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $148.9B | $11.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $11.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $11.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $11.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $130.5B | $11.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $11.3B |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Cash flow is harder to manipulate than net income.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | — | $125.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $-116.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | -4.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 8.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 0.89× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $840.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $125.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $477.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $412.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $452.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $167.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $409.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $401.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $442.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $-116.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $351.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $290.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $315.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-15.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $244.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $232.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $253.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | -4.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 10.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 10.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 10.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -0.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 7.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 8.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 8.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | 8.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 3.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 4.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 4.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 7.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 5.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 6.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 6.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.89× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.69× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.92× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.55× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.45× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.38× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.89× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.54× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
BNT
Segment breakdown not available.
YUMC
| Revenue From External Customers | $2.1B | 75% |
| Pizza Hut | $540.0M | 19% |
| Corporate And Unallocated | $105.0M | 4% |
| Other Revenue | $45.0M | 2% |
| Franchise Fees And Income | $25.0M | 1% |
