DIN Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Cheesecake Factory, Inc. has a net margin of 3.23% compared to Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s net margin of 3.52%. Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s return on equity of -- beat Cheesecake Factory, Inc.'s return on equity of 40.09%.

Dine Brands Global, Inc. has a consensus price target of $34.25, signalling downside risk potential of -19.27%. On the other hand Cheesecake Factory, Inc. has an analysts' consensus of $59.11 which suggests that it could grow by 2.32%. Given that Cheesecake Factory, Inc. has higher upside potential than Dine Brands Global, Inc., analysts believe Cheesecake Factory, Inc. is more attractive than Dine Brands Global, Inc..

Dine Brands Global, Inc. has a beta of 0.925, which suggesting that the stock is 7.5% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Cheesecake Factory, Inc. has a beta of 0.968, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 3.191%.

Dine Brands Global, Inc. has a quarterly dividend of $0.19 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.75%. Cheesecake Factory, Inc. offers a yield of 1.88% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.27 per share. Dine Brands Global, Inc. pays 48.37% of its earnings as a dividend. Cheesecake Factory, Inc. pays out 33.74% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Dine Brands Global, Inc. quarterly revenues are $216.2M, which are smaller than Cheesecake Factory, Inc. quarterly revenues of $907.2M. Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s net income of $7M is lower than Cheesecake Factory, Inc.'s net income of $31.9M. Notably, Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s price-to-earnings ratio is 16.21x while Cheesecake Factory, Inc.'s PE ratio is 17.49x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Dine Brands Global, Inc. is 0.62x versus 0.76x for Cheesecake Factory, Inc.. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. has a net margin of 3.23% compared to Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s net margin of 7.65%. Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s return on equity of -- beat Darden Restaurants, Inc.'s return on equity of 51.56%.

Dine Brands Global, Inc. has a consensus price target of $34.25, signalling downside risk potential of -19.27%. On the other hand Darden Restaurants, Inc. has an analysts' consensus of $219.47 which suggests that it could grow by 8.45%. Given that Darden Restaurants, Inc. has higher upside potential than Dine Brands Global, Inc., analysts believe Darden Restaurants, Inc. is more attractive than Dine Brands Global, Inc..

Dine Brands Global, Inc. has a beta of 0.925, which suggesting that the stock is 7.5% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Darden Restaurants, Inc. has a beta of 0.645, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 35.524%.

Dine Brands Global, Inc. has a quarterly dividend of $0.19 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.75%. Darden Restaurants, Inc. offers a yield of 2.92% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $1.50 per share. Dine Brands Global, Inc. pays 48.37% of its earnings as a dividend. Darden Restaurants, Inc. pays out 63.17% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Dine Brands Global, Inc. quarterly revenues are $216.2M, which are smaller than Darden Restaurants, Inc. quarterly revenues of $3.1B. Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s net income of $7M is lower than Darden Restaurants, Inc.'s net income of $237.4M. Notably, Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s price-to-earnings ratio is 16.21x while Darden Restaurants, Inc.'s PE ratio is 21.21x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Dine Brands Global, Inc. is 0.62x versus 1.89x for Darden Restaurants, Inc.. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Brinker International, Inc. has a net margin of 3.23% compared to Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s net margin of 7.38%. Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s return on equity of -- beat Brinker International, Inc.'s return on equity of 198.61%.

Dine Brands Global, Inc. has a consensus price target of $34.25, signalling downside risk potential of -19.27%. On the other hand Brinker International, Inc. has an analysts' consensus of $173.35 which suggests that it could grow by 7.6%. Given that Brinker International, Inc. has higher upside potential than Dine Brands Global, Inc., analysts believe Brinker International, Inc. is more attractive than Dine Brands Global, Inc..

Dine Brands Global, Inc. has a beta of 0.925, which suggesting that the stock is 7.5% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Brinker International, Inc. has a beta of 1.340, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 33.972%.

Dine Brands Global, Inc. has a quarterly dividend of $0.19 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.75%. Brinker International, Inc. offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Dine Brands Global, Inc. pays 48.37% of its earnings as a dividend. Brinker International, Inc. pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Dine Brands Global, Inc. quarterly revenues are $216.2M, which are smaller than Brinker International, Inc. quarterly revenues of $1.3B. Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s net income of $7M is lower than Brinker International, Inc.'s net income of $99.5M. Notably, Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s price-to-earnings ratio is 16.21x while Brinker International, Inc.'s PE ratio is 16.59x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Dine Brands Global, Inc. is 0.62x versus 1.32x for Brinker International, Inc.. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Texas Roadhouse, Inc. has a net margin of 3.23% compared to Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s net margin of 5.91%. Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s return on equity of -- beat Texas Roadhouse, Inc.'s return on equity of 31.71%.

Dine Brands Global, Inc. has a consensus price target of $34.25, signalling downside risk potential of -19.27%. On the other hand Texas Roadhouse, Inc. has an analysts' consensus of $192.32 which suggests that it could grow by 5.01%. Given that Texas Roadhouse, Inc. has higher upside potential than Dine Brands Global, Inc., analysts believe Texas Roadhouse, Inc. is more attractive than Dine Brands Global, Inc..

Dine Brands Global, Inc. has a beta of 0.925, which suggesting that the stock is 7.5% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Texas Roadhouse, Inc. has a beta of 0.888, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 11.233%.

Dine Brands Global, Inc. has a quarterly dividend of $0.19 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.75%. Texas Roadhouse, Inc. offers a yield of 1.49% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.68 per share. Dine Brands Global, Inc. pays 48.37% of its earnings as a dividend. Texas Roadhouse, Inc. pays out 37.71% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Dine Brands Global, Inc. quarterly revenues are $216.2M, which are smaller than Texas Roadhouse, Inc. quarterly revenues of $1.4B. Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s net income of $7M is lower than Texas Roadhouse, Inc.'s net income of $84.9M. Notably, Dine Brands Global, Inc.'s price-to-earnings ratio is 16.21x while Texas Roadhouse, Inc.'s PE ratio is 27.97x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Dine Brands Global, Inc. is 0.62x versus 2.09x for Texas Roadhouse, Inc.. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.