vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Good Times Restaurants Inc. (GTIM) and Yum China Holdings, Inc. (YUMC), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. 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 $32.7M, roughly 86.3× Good Times Restaurants Inc.). Yum China Holdings, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 0.6% vs 5.0%, a 4.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Yum China Holdings, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (8.8% vs -10.0%). Good Times Restaurants Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($1.2M vs $-116.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Yum China Holdings, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (-2.3% CAGR vs -3.9%).
Good Times is a Golden, Colorado–based fast-food restaurant specializing in premium burgers and frozen custard. As of July 2023, the chain operates 31 locations, down from 38 in 2015.
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 ...
GTIM vs YUMC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $32.7M | $2.8B |
| Net Profit | $181.0K | $140.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 0.9% | 6.6% |
| Net Margin | 0.6% | 5.0% |
| Revenue YoY | -10.0% | 8.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | 10.4% | 21.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.02 | $0.40 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $32.7M | $2.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $37.0M | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $34.3M | $2.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $36.3M | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $35.8M | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $38.0M | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $35.4M | $3.0B |
| Q4 25 | $181.0K | $140.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.5M | $282.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-624.0K | $215.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $292.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $164.0K | $115.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $230.0K | $297.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.3M | $212.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $618.0K | $287.0M |
| Q4 25 | 0.9% | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.3% | 12.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -1.5% | 10.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 13.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.2% | 5.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | -0.3% | 12.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.2% | 9.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.8% | 12.6% |
| Q4 25 | 0.6% | 5.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.0% | 8.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | -1.8% | 7.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 9.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.5% | 4.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.6% | 9.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.5% | 7.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.7% | 9.7% |
| Q4 25 | $0.02 | $0.40 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.14 | $0.76 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.06 | $0.58 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.77 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.02 | $0.30 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.01 | $0.77 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.12 | $0.55 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.06 | $0.71 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | $1.4B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $33.2M | $5.4B |
| Total Assets | $82.5M | $10.8B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.7M | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0M | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.9M | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.0M | $2.4B |
| Q4 25 | $33.2M | $5.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $33.1M | $5.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $31.6M | $5.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $5.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $32.4M | $5.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $32.4M | $6.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $32.3M | $5.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $31.6M | $5.9B |
| Q4 25 | $82.5M | $10.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $85.8M | $11.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $86.9M | $11.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $11.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $89.5M | $11.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $87.1M | $11.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $90.1M | $11.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $89.0M | $11.3B |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $1.4M | $125.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $1.2M | $-116.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 3.8% | -4.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.6% | 8.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 7.85× | 0.89× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $840.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.4M | $125.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3M | $477.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $412.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $452.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-518.0K | $167.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $394.0K | $409.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.2M | $401.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.8M | $442.0M |
| Q4 25 | $1.2M | $-116.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $735.0K | $351.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $290.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $315.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.9M | $-15.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-466.0K | $244.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0M | $232.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.2M | $253.0M |
| Q4 25 | 3.8% | -4.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.0% | 10.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 10.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 10.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | -5.3% | -0.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.3% | 7.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.3% | 8.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.2% | 8.6% |
| Q4 25 | 0.6% | 8.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.4% | 3.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.5% | 4.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 4.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.9% | 7.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.4% | 5.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.2% | 6.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.7% | 6.4% |
| Q4 25 | 7.85× | 0.89× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.85× | 1.69× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.92× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.55× | ||
| Q4 24 | -3.16× | 1.45× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.71× | 1.38× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.44× | 1.89× | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.86× | 1.54× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
GTIM
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% |
