vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC (EAT) and Yum China Holdings, Inc. (YUMC). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Yum China Holdings, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.8B vs $1.5B, roughly 1.9× BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC). BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC runs the higher net margin — 8.8% vs 5.0%, a 3.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Yum China Holdings, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (8.8% vs 6.9%). BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC produced more free cash flow last quarter ($155.2M vs $-116.0M). Over the past eight quarters, BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC's revenue compounded faster (13.9% CAGR vs -2.3%).
Brinker International, Inc. is an American multinational hospitality industry company that owns Chili's and Maggiano's Little Italy restaurant chains. Founded in 1975 and based in Dallas, Texas, Brinker currently owns, operates, or franchises 1,672 restaurants under the names Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy worldwide.
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 ...
EAT vs YUMC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.5B | $2.8B |
| Net Profit | $128.5M | $140.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 11.6% | 6.6% |
| Net Margin | 8.8% | 5.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 6.9% | 8.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | 8.4% | 21.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.86 | $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 | $1.5B | $2.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5B | $2.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.4B | $3.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.1B | $3.0B |
| Q4 25 | $128.5M | $140.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $99.5M | $282.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $107.0M | $215.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $119.1M | $292.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $118.5M | $115.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $38.5M | $297.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $57.3M | $212.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $48.7M | $287.0M |
| Q4 25 | 11.6% | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.7% | 12.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.8% | 10.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.0% | 13.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.5% | 5.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.0% | 12.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.1% | 9.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.2% | 12.6% |
| Q4 25 | 8.8% | 5.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.4% | 8.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.3% | 7.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.4% | 9.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.7% | 4.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.4% | 9.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | 7.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.3% | 9.7% |
| Q4 25 | $2.86 | $0.40 | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.17 | $0.76 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.31 | $0.58 | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.56 | $0.77 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.61 | $0.30 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.84 | $0.77 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.22 | $0.55 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.08 | $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 | $15.0M | $1.4B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $451.3M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $379.3M | $5.4B |
| Total Assets | $2.7B | $10.8B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.19× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $15.0M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $33.6M | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $18.9M | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.5M | $2.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $14.8M | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $16.2M | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $64.6M | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $15.5M | $2.4B |
| Q4 25 | $451.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $525.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $426.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $518.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $652.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $806.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $786.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $818.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | $379.3M | $5.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $343.9M | $5.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $370.9M | $5.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $259.0M | $5.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $131.5M | $5.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.7M | $6.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $39.4M | $5.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $-46.7M | $5.9B |
| Q4 25 | $2.7B | $10.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.7B | $11.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.7B | $11.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6B | $11.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.6B | $11.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | $11.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.6B | $11.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.5B | $11.3B |
| Q4 25 | 1.19× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.53× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.15× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.00× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.96× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 63.54× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.96× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | $218.9M | $125.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $155.2M | $-116.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 10.7% | -4.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 4.4% | 8.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.70× | 0.89× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $455.9M | $840.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $218.9M | $125.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $120.8M | $477.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $186.0M | $412.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $212.0M | $452.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $218.2M | $167.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $62.8M | $409.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $141.5M | $401.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $130.1M | $442.0M |
| Q4 25 | $155.2M | $-116.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $62.2M | $351.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $106.1M | $290.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $132.4M | $315.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $168.9M | $-15.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.3M | $244.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $83.5M | $232.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $78.7M | $253.0M |
| Q4 25 | 10.7% | -4.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.6% | 10.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.3% | 10.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.3% | 10.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.4% | -0.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.6% | 7.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.9% | 8.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.0% | 8.6% |
| Q4 25 | 4.4% | 8.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.3% | 3.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.5% | 4.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.6% | 4.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.6% | 7.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.0% | 5.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.8% | 6.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.6% | 6.4% |
| Q4 25 | 1.70× | 0.89× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.21× | 1.69× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.74× | 1.92× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.78× | 1.55× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.84× | 1.45× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.63× | 1.38× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.47× | 1.89× | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.67× | 1.54× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
EAT
| Chilis Restaurants | $1.3B | 91% |
| Maggianos Restaurants | $134.9M | 9% |
| Franchise Revenues | $13.4M | 1% |
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% |
