Brinker International, Inc.
Brinker International, Inc. EAT Peers
See (EAT) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Restaurants Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EAT | $180.91 | +0.32% | 8.2B | 25.61 | $7.18 | N/A |
| MCD | $294.23 | +0.71% | 212.8B | 26.29 | $11.32 | +2.34% |
| SBUX | $93.72 | +2.28% | 107.9B | 34.51 | $2.75 | +2.53% |
| CMG | $56.78 | +1.12% | 78.5B | 51.53 | $1.13 | N/A |
| YUM | $149.85 | +1.12% | 41.8B | 29.95 | $5.02 | +1.83% |
| DRI | $217.70 | -0.12% | 25.7B | 24.74 | $8.87 | +2.54% |
| QSR | $67.32 | +1.55% | 22.3B | 23.02 | $2.95 | +3.54% |
| YUMC | $45.84 | +2.53% | 17.1B | 19.12 | $2.39 | +1.75% |
| DPZ | $449.51 | -0.24% | 15.7B | 26.26 | $17.42 | +1.41% |
| TXRH | $190.45 | +1.62% | 12.6B | 29.16 | $6.49 | +1.35% |
Stock Comparison
EAT vs MCD Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, MCD has a market cap of 212.8B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while MCD trades at $294.23.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas MCD's P/E ratio is 26.29. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to MCD's ROE of -1.89%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to MCD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs SBUX Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, SBUX has a market cap of 107.9B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while SBUX trades at $93.72.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas SBUX's P/E ratio is 34.51. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to SBUX's ROE of -0.41%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to SBUX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs CMG Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, CMG has a market cap of 78.5B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while CMG trades at $56.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas CMG's P/E ratio is 51.53. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to CMG's ROE of +0.43%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to CMG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs YUM Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, YUM has a market cap of 41.8B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while YUM trades at $149.85.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas YUM's P/E ratio is 29.95. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to YUM's ROE of -0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to YUM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs DRI Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, DRI has a market cap of 25.7B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while DRI trades at $217.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas DRI's P/E ratio is 24.74. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to DRI's ROE of +0.48%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to DRI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs QSR Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, QSR has a market cap of 22.3B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while QSR trades at $67.32.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas QSR's P/E ratio is 23.02. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to QSR's ROE of +0.30%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to QSR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs YUMC Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, YUMC has a market cap of 17.1B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while YUMC trades at $45.84.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas YUMC's P/E ratio is 19.12. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to YUMC's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to YUMC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs DPZ Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, DPZ has a market cap of 15.7B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while DPZ trades at $449.51.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas DPZ's P/E ratio is 26.26. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to DPZ's ROE of -0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to DPZ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs TXRH Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, TXRH has a market cap of 12.6B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while TXRH trades at $190.45.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas TXRH's P/E ratio is 29.16. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to TXRH's ROE of +0.33%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to TXRH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs BROS Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, BROS has a market cap of 11.6B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while BROS trades at $65.32.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas BROS's P/E ratio is 172.15. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to BROS's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to BROS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs CAVA Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, CAVA has a market cap of 9.5B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while CAVA trades at $82.51.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas CAVA's P/E ratio is 68.63. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to CAVA's ROE of +0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to CAVA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs WING Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, WING has a market cap of 9.4B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while WING trades at $317.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas WING's P/E ratio is 56.38. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to WING's ROE of -0.30%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to WING. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs SHAK Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, SHAK has a market cap of 5.6B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while SHAK trades at $139.49.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas SHAK's P/E ratio is 494.46. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to SHAK's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to SHAK. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs CAKE Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, CAKE has a market cap of 3.2B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while CAKE trades at $64.69.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas CAKE's P/E ratio is 19.97. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to CAKE's ROE of +0.52%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to CAKE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs WEN Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, WEN has a market cap of 2.3B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while WEN trades at $11.65.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas WEN's P/E ratio is 12.64. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to WEN's ROE of +0.83%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to WEN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs SG Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, SG has a market cap of 1.7B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while SG trades at $14.65.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas SG's P/E ratio is -18.90. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to SG's ROE of -0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to SG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs ARCO Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, ARCO has a market cap of 1.7B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while ARCO trades at $7.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas ARCO's P/E ratio is 12.45. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to ARCO's ROE of +0.27%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to ARCO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs PZZA Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, PZZA has a market cap of 1.6B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while PZZA trades at $50.46.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas PZZA's P/E ratio is 20.88. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to PZZA's ROE of -0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to PZZA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs CBRL Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, CBRL has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while CBRL trades at $67.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas CBRL's P/E ratio is 25.03. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to CBRL's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to CBRL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs CNNE Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, CNNE has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while CNNE trades at $21.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas CNNE's P/E ratio is -4.89. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to CNNE's ROE of -0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to CNNE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs HDL Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, HDL has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while HDL trades at $19.76.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas HDL's P/E ratio is 27.77. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to HDL's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to HDL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs KRUS Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, KRUS has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while KRUS trades at $89.31.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas KRUS's P/E ratio is -96.24. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to KRUS's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to KRUS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs FWRG Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, FWRG has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while FWRG trades at $17.33.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas FWRG's P/E ratio is 101.18. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to FWRG's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to FWRG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs BJRI Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, BJRI has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while BJRI trades at $46.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas BJRI's P/E ratio is 47.76. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to BJRI's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to BJRI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs BH Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, BH has a market cap of 905.4M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while BH trades at $293.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas BH's P/E ratio is -6.69. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to BH's ROE of -0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to BH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs BH-A Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, BH-A has a market cap of 876.7M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while BH-A trades at $1,389.99.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas BH-A's P/E ratio is -6.28. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to BH-A's ROE of -0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to BH-A. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs TWNPV Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, TWNPV has a market cap of 857.9M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while TWNPV trades at $17.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas TWNPV's P/E ratio is -36.38. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to TWNPV's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to TWNPV. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs BLMN Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, BLMN has a market cap of 822.5M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while BLMN trades at $9.95.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas BLMN's P/E ratio is 10.87. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to BLMN's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to BLMN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs PTLO Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, PTLO has a market cap of 770.3M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while PTLO trades at $12.07.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas PTLO's P/E ratio is 27.95. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to PTLO's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to PTLO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs RUTH Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, RUTH has a market cap of 690.5M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while RUTH trades at $21.49.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas RUTH's P/E ratio is 18.06. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to RUTH's ROE of +0.29%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to RUTH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs CHUY Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, CHUY has a market cap of 645.9M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while CHUY trades at $37.48.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas CHUY's P/E ratio is 24.18. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to CHUY's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to CHUY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs TAST Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, TAST has a market cap of 502M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while TAST trades at $9.54.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas TAST's P/E ratio is 16.45. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to TAST's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to TAST. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs VENU Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, VENU has a market cap of 461.1M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while VENU trades at $12.42.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas VENU's P/E ratio is -14.13. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to VENU's ROE of -0.40%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to VENU. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs NATH Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, NATH has a market cap of 447.5M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while NATH trades at $108.19.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas NATH's P/E ratio is 18.64. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to NATH's ROE of -1.17%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to NATH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs DIN Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, DIN has a market cap of 407M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while DIN trades at $26.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas DIN's P/E ratio is 7.20. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to DIN's ROE of -0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to DIN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs PBPB Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, PBPB has a market cap of 376.2M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while PBPB trades at $12.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas PBPB's P/E ratio is 8.91. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to PBPB's ROE of +0.79%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to PBPB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs JACK Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, JACK has a market cap of 360.4M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while JACK trades at $20.67.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas JACK's P/E ratio is -1.77. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to JACK's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to JACK. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs RICK Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, RICK has a market cap of 348.2M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while RICK trades at $40.17.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas RICK's P/E ratio is 46.02. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to RICK's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to RICK. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs LOCO Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, LOCO has a market cap of 341.1M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while LOCO trades at $11.33.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas LOCO's P/E ratio is 13.20. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to LOCO's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to LOCO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs TWNP Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, TWNP has a market cap of 263M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while TWNP trades at $4.59.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas TWNP's P/E ratio is -4.50. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to TWNP's ROE of +0.64%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to TWNP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs DENN Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, DENN has a market cap of 231.7M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while DENN trades at $4.71.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas DENN's P/E ratio is 13.70. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to DENN's ROE of -0.39%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to DENN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs FRGI Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, FRGI has a market cap of 222.5M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while FRGI trades at $8.50.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas FRGI's P/E ratio is -33.98. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to FRGI's ROE of -0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to FRGI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs BBQ Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, BBQ has a market cap of 185.5M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while BBQ trades at $17.24.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas BBQ's P/E ratio is 15.53. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to BBQ's ROE of +0.51%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to BBQ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs MB Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, MB has a market cap of 152M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while MB trades at $7.98.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas MB's P/E ratio is 35.76. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to MB's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to MB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs STKS Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, STKS has a market cap of 136.3M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while STKS trades at $4.52.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas STKS's P/E ratio is -3.50. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to STKS's ROE of -0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to STKS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs RRGB Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, RRGB has a market cap of 114.4M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while RRGB trades at $6.68.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas RRGB's P/E ratio is -1.52. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to RRGB's ROE of +1.05%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to RRGB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs THCHW Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, THCHW has a market cap of 99.6M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while THCHW trades at $0.56.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas THCHW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to THCHW's ROE of +0.43%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to THCHW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs THCH Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, THCH has a market cap of 98.2M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while THCH trades at $2.94.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas THCH's P/E ratio is -1.79. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to THCH's ROE of +0.43%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to THCH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs GRIL Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, GRIL has a market cap of 54.2M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while GRIL trades at $1.32.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas GRIL's P/E ratio is -5.28. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to GRIL's ROE of +0.52%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to GRIL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs FATAV Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, FATAV has a market cap of 54.2M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while FATAV trades at $3.42.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas FATAV's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to FATAV's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to FATAV. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs BDL Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, BDL has a market cap of 53.9M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while BDL trades at $34.72.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas BDL's P/E ratio is 13.24. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to BDL's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to BDL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs FATBB Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, FATBB has a market cap of 49.1M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while FATBB trades at $2.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas FATBB's P/E ratio is -0.22. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to FATBB's ROE of +0.37%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to FATBB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs FATBP Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, FATBP has a market cap of 43M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while FATBP trades at $2.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas FATBP's P/E ratio is -0.83. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to FATBP's ROE of +0.37%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to FATBP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs FAT Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, FAT has a market cap of 42.6M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while FAT trades at $2.48.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas FAT's P/E ratio is -0.20. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to FAT's ROE of +0.37%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT and FAT have similar daily volatility (2.84).
EAT vs RAVE Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, RAVE has a market cap of 38.8M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while RAVE trades at $2.83.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas RAVE's P/E ratio is 14.37. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to RAVE's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to RAVE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs NDLS Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, NDLS has a market cap of 32.6M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while NDLS trades at $0.69.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas NDLS's P/E ratio is -0.83. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to NDLS's ROE of +5.88%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to NDLS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs ARKR Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, ARKR has a market cap of 32.6M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while ARKR trades at $9.20.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas ARKR's P/E ratio is -3.29. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to ARKR's ROE of -0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to ARKR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs FATBW Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, FATBW has a market cap of 28.4M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while FATBW trades at $2.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas FATBW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to FATBW's ROE of +0.37%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to FATBW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs MYT Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, MYT has a market cap of 22.4M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while MYT trades at $2.16.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas MYT's P/E ratio is -8.00. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to MYT's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to MYT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs GENK Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, GENK has a market cap of 20.3M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while GENK trades at $3.80.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas GENK's P/E ratio is -100.75. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to GENK's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to GENK. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs GTIM Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, GTIM has a market cap of 19.1M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while GTIM trades at $1.88.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas GTIM's P/E ratio is 20.00. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to GTIM's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to GTIM. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs YOSH Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, YOSH has a market cap of 16.1M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while YOSH trades at $9.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas YOSH's P/E ratio is -4.23. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to YOSH's ROE of -2.71%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to YOSH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs REBN Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, REBN has a market cap of 13.6M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while REBN trades at $2.62.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas REBN's P/E ratio is -1.67. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to REBN's ROE of -2.92%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to REBN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs PC Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, PC has a market cap of 11M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while PC trades at $0.73.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas PC's P/E ratio is -8.62. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to PC's ROE of +2.03%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to PC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs BTBD Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, BTBD has a market cap of 8.3M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while BTBD trades at $1.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas BTBD's P/E ratio is -3.87. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to BTBD's ROE of -0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to BTBD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs BTBDW Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, BTBDW has a market cap of 6.5M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while BTBDW trades at $0.04.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas BTBDW's P/E ratio is 0.26. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to BTBDW's ROE of -0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to BTBDW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs BTB Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, BTB has a market cap of 6.2M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while BTB trades at $0.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas BTB's P/E ratio is -0.19. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to BTB's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to BTB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs FATBV Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, FATBV has a market cap of 6.1M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while FATBV trades at $4.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas FATBV's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to FATBV's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to FATBV. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs CHSN Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, CHSN has a market cap of 5.6M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while CHSN trades at $0.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas CHSN's P/E ratio is 2.58. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to CHSN's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to CHSN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs BFI Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, BFI has a market cap of 2.3M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while BFI trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas BFI's P/E ratio is -0.08. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to BFI's ROE of -0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to BFI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs PNST Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, PNST has a market cap of 2.1M. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while PNST trades at $0.06.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas PNST's P/E ratio is -0.05. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to PNST's ROE of +0.43%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to PNST. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs BFIIW Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, BFIIW has a market cap of 242.3K. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while BFIIW trades at $0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas BFIIW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to BFIIW's ROE of -0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is less volatile compared to BFIIW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs ONDR Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, ONDR has a market cap of 81. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while ONDR trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas ONDR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to ONDR's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to ONDR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.
EAT vs LUB Comparison
EAT plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, EAT stands at 8.2B. In comparison, LUB has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, EAT is priced at $180.91, while LUB trades at $1.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
EAT currently has a P/E ratio of 25.61, whereas LUB's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, EAT's ROE is +3.01%, compared to LUB's ROE of -0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, EAT is more volatile compared to LUB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for EAT.