BLMN vs TXRH Stock Comparison
Compare BLMN and TXRH across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BLMN and TXRH?
BLMN leads the current stock comparison as Bloomin' Brands, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bloomin' Brands, Inc. vs Texas Roadhouse, Inc.
BLMN leads
BLMN leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support BLMN, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bloomin' Brands, Inc.
Texas Roadhouse, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BLMN over TXRH, 41 versus 39 as of Sep 11, 2026. BLMN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while TXRH holds the stronger quality profile. BLMN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BLMN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. BLMN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bloomin' Brands, Inc. and Texas Roadhouse, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare BLMN and TXRH against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value72 vs 29BLMN +43
- Quality25 vs 54TXRH +29
- Risk Resilience26 vs 55TXRH +29
- Momentum33 vs 25BLMN +8
3 of 6 evidence groups favor BLMN. BLMN’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; TXRH keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No new signals fired.
BLMN's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BLMN and TXRH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BLMN (Bloomin' Brands, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
TXRH (Texas Roadhouse, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
BLMNBLMN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TXRHTXRH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BLMNBLMN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 43 points.
Momentum
BLMNBLMN on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
TXRHTXRH on Risk Resilience, by 29 points.
Analyst upside
BLMNBLMN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | BLMN | TXRH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.8% | +14.6% | BLMN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.3% | +28.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BLMN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 41 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | TXRHon balance | revenue growth -4.1% vs 2.9%; TTM ROE 7.4% vs 27.6%; gross margin 40.1% vs 15.3%; operating margin 1.3% vs 8% — TXRH takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BLMN | Value 72 vs 29 |
| Technicals | BLMN | Price vs 50-day -8.9% vs -8.4%; vs 200-day 15.5% vs 0.6% |
| Risk Resilience | TXRH | Risk Resilience 26 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | BLMN | Target upside 20.8% vs 14.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BLMN and TXRH and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on BLMN.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10BLMN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BLMN +2
- 41 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- BLMN +7
- 46 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- BLMN +6
- 51 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- TXRH +3
- 49 vs 52
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 5 when BLMN moved ahead of TXRH.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (27.03%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.96%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
BLMN leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.23%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.09%, AIQ +2 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1TXRH closes the Value gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to BLMN's edge.
- 2TXRH's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3BLMN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate BLMN's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
TXRH leads on balance| Metric | BLMN | TXRH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -4.1% | 2.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -43.1% | -0.5% |
| Gross margin | 40.1% | 15.3% |
| Operating margin | 1.3% | 8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.4% | 27.6% |
| Debt to equity | 4.43 | 0.7 |
Performance
BLMN leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BLMN | TXRH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -12.7% | -5.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -23.9% | -11.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17% | 10.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 52.2% | 5.2% |
| Year to date | 40.5% | 9.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 25.3% | 8.1% |
Technicals
BLMN has the stronger structure| Metric | BLMN | TXRH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.3 | 20.5 |
| ADX (14) | 22.5 | 30.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.9% | -8.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.5% | 0.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 60.9% | 21.1% |
Risk
TXRH is the more resilient| Metric | BLMN | TXRH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.32 | 0.29 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.6 | 0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.25 | 0.53 |
| Max drawdown | -34.8% | -20% |
| Current drawdown | -26.8% | -15.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 77.8% | 30.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.7% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BLMN or TXRH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BLMN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 41 against TXRH's 39. The edge comes from value and momentum. TXRH is not without a case — it holds the better quality profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is BLMN or TXRH the better buy right now?
BLMN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BLMN over TXRH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BLMN leads Value by 43 points; TXRH leads Quality by 29 points; TXRH leads Risk Resilience by 29 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BLMN or TXRH?
Analyst price targets imply +20.8% upside for BLMN and +14.6% for TXRH, so the Street currently favors BLMN. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, BLMN or TXRH?
BLMN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BLMN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 43 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, BLMN or TXRH?
TXRH on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, BLMN or TXRH?
BLMN on the Momentum factor, by 8 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, BLMN or TXRH?
TXRH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TXRH on Risk Resilience, by 29 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BLMN more profitable than TXRH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 40.1% vs 15.3%; operating margin 1.3% vs 8%; ttm roe 7.4% vs 27.6%. BLMN leads on one measure and TXRH on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is BLMN's lead over TXRH getting stronger or weaker?
BLMN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-05, when BLMN moved ahead of TXRH.
What would change the BLMN vs TXRH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TXRH closes the Value gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to BLMN's edge; TXRH's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; BLMN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate BLMN's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BLMN and TXRH?
BLMN: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. TXRH: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on BLMN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TXRH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BLMN and TXRH with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.