vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of NATHANS FAMOUS, INC. (NATH) 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 $34.3M, roughly 82.3× NATHANS FAMOUS, INC.). NATHANS FAMOUS, INC. runs the higher net margin — 9.0% vs 5.0%, a 4.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, NATHANS FAMOUS, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (8.9% vs 8.8%). NATHANS FAMOUS, INC. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($5.7M vs $-116.0M). Over the past eight quarters, NATHANS FAMOUS, INC.'s revenue compounded faster (8.8% CAGR vs -2.3%).
Nathan's Famous, Inc., is an American company that operates a chain of fast-food restaurants specializing in hot dogs. The original Nathan's restaurant stands at the corner of Surf and Stillwell avenues in the Coney Island neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York City. Its restaurants are primarily in the Northeastern United States. The company's headquarters are at One Jericho Plaza in Jericho, part of Oyster Bay, New York.
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 ...
NATH vs YUMC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $34.3M | $2.8B |
| Net Profit | $3.1M | $140.0M |
| Gross Margin | 32.6% | — |
| Operating Margin | 14.9% | 6.6% |
| Net Margin | 9.0% | 5.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 8.9% | 8.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | -31.2% | 21.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.75 | $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 | $34.3M | $2.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $45.7M | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $47.0M | $2.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $30.8M | $3.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $31.5M | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $41.1M | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $44.8M | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $29.0M | $3.0B |
| Q4 25 | $3.1M | $140.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.2M | $282.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.9M | $215.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.2M | $292.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.5M | $115.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.0M | $297.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.3M | $212.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.9M | $287.0M |
| Q4 25 | 32.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 29.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 39.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 38.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 37.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 36.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 43.6% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 43.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | 14.9% | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.4% | 12.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 27.2% | 10.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 20.7% | 13.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 21.4% | 5.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 23.4% | 12.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 30.7% | 9.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 23.5% | 12.6% |
| Q4 25 | 9.0% | 5.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.4% | 8.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.0% | 7.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.8% | 9.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.2% | 4.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 14.7% | 9.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 20.7% | 7.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 13.5% | 9.7% |
| Q4 25 | $0.75 | $0.40 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.26 | $0.76 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.16 | $0.58 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.03 | $0.77 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.10 | $0.30 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.47 | $0.77 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.27 | $0.55 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.95 | $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 | $24.5M | $1.4B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $48.7M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $-15.3M | $5.4B |
| Total Assets | $50.9M | $10.8B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $24.5M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $32.2M | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $26.9M | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $27.8M | $2.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $23.7M | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $31.2M | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $26.0M | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $21.0M | $2.4B |
| Q4 25 | $48.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $49.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $49.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $50.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $51.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $59.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $59.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-15.3M | $5.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $-5.9M | $5.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $-9.3M | $5.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $-16.5M | $5.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $-19.0M | $5.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $-21.3M | $6.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $-25.5M | $5.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $-32.9M | $5.9B |
| Q4 25 | $50.9M | $10.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $62.9M | $11.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $63.4M | $11.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $53.5M | $11.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $48.7M | $11.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $57.7M | $11.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $58.5M | $11.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $48.9M | $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 | $5.8M | $125.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $5.7M | $-116.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 16.6% | -4.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.2% | 8.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.87× | 0.89× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $22.1M | $840.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $5.8M | $125.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.2M | $477.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-220.0K | $412.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.8M | $452.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.6M | $167.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.8M | $409.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.0M | $401.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.4M | $442.0M |
| Q4 25 | $5.7M | $-116.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.0M | $351.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-335.0K | $290.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.7M | $315.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.6M | $-15.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.7M | $244.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.0M | $232.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.3M | $253.0M |
| Q4 25 | 16.6% | -4.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 21.9% | 10.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.7% | 10.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 21.9% | 10.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.4% | -0.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 23.7% | 7.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.1% | 8.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 21.9% | 8.6% |
| Q4 25 | 0.2% | 8.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.4% | 3.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.2% | 4.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.2% | 4.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.1% | 7.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.2% | 5.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.1% | 6.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.2% | 6.4% |
| Q4 25 | 1.87× | 0.89× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.95× | 1.69× | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.02× | 1.92× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.60× | 1.55× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.81× | 1.45× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.63× | 1.38× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.54× | 1.89× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.64× | 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
NATH
| Branded Product Program | $23.7M | 69% |
| Product Licensing | $7.4M | 22% |
| Company Operated Restaurants | $1.6M | 5% |
| Franchise Fees And Royalties | $1.0M | 3% |
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% |
