BYD vs YUMC Stock Comparison
Boyd Gaming Corporation vs Yum China Holdings, Inc.
BYD leads
BYD leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from YUMC. Wall Street currently favors YUMC on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BYD, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Boyd Gaming Corporation
Yum China Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BYD over YUMC, 53 versus 43 as of Sep 5, 2026. BYD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. BYD also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors YUMC. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BYD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. BYD lead: Reversed — YUMC led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BYD now leads by 10.
Compare Boyd Gaming Corporation and Yum China Holdings, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare BYD and YUMC 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.
- Quality30%67 vs 49BYD +18
- Risk Resilience15%59 vs 44BYD +15
- Value30%60 vs 51BYD +9
- Momentum25%24 vs 24Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BYD. BYD’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
BYD's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BYD and YUMC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BYD (Boyd Gaming Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
YUMC (Yum China Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 26.9% against 18.5%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
BYDBYD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
BYDBYD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BYDBYD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
BYDBYD on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
YUMCYUMC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BYD, analyst targets favor YUMC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BYD | YUMC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.5% | +35.3% | YUMC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +23.1% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BYD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BYD | 53 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | BYD | revenue growth 3.7% vs -4.1%; EPS growth 27.7% vs -20.5%; TTM ROE 70.5% vs 17.8%; gross margin 37.1% vs 17.2%; operating margin 19.5% vs 12.2% |
| Valuation | BYD | Value 60 vs 51 |
| Technicals | YUMC | Price vs 50-day -7.8% vs -3.5%; vs 200-day -7.4% vs -8.8% |
| Risk Resilience | BYD | Risk Resilience 59 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | YUMC | Target upside 16.5% vs 35.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BYD and YUMC 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 moderate at 10 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 BYD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4BYD lead: Reversed — YUMC led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BYD now leads by 10.
- Today
- BYD +10
- 53 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- BYD +8
- 55 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- YUMC +2
- 54 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- BYD +19
- 63 vs 44
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when BYD moved ahead of YUMC.
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, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.44%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.5%)
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.90%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
BYD 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 +0.3%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.21%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1YUMC closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to BYD's edge.
- 2YUMC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BYD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
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
BYD leads on balance| Metric | BYD | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.7% | -4.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 27.7% | -20.5% |
| Gross margin | 37.1% | 17.2% |
| Operating margin | 19.5% | 12.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 70.5% | 17.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.3 | 0.43 |
Performance
BYD leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BYD | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.8% | -3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.5% | -8.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.2% | 1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.6% | -15.9% |
| Year to date | -8.5% | -8.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -8.6% | -1.8% |
Technicals
YUMC has the stronger structure| Metric | BYD | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 23.8 | 31.6 |
| ADX (14) | 28.8 | 27.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.8% | -3.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.4% | -8.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.5% | 26.9% |
Risk
BYD is the more resilient| Metric | BYD | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.55 | 0.28 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.41 | -0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.58 | -0.23 |
| Max drawdown | -16.3% | -30.7% |
| Current drawdown | -14.5% | -24.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 25.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BYD or YUMC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BYD is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 53 against YUMC's 43. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 BYD or YUMC the better buy right now?
BYD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BYD over YUMC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. BYD leads Quality by 18 points; BYD leads Risk Resilience by 15 points; BYD leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BYD or YUMC?
Analyst price targets imply +16.5% upside for BYD and +35.3% for YUMC, so the Street currently favors YUMC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BYD. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, BYD or YUMC?
BYD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BYD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, BYD or YUMC?
BYD 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, BYD or YUMC?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of 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, BYD or YUMC?
BYD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BYD on Risk Resilience, by 15 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BYD more profitable than YUMC?
BYD leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 37.1% vs 17.2%; operating margin 19.5% vs 12.2%; ttm roe 70.5% vs 17.8%.
Is BYD's lead over YUMC getting stronger or weaker?
BYD lead: Reversed — YUMC led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BYD now leads by 10. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-26, when BYD moved ahead of YUMC.
What would change the BYD vs YUMC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: YUMC closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to BYD's edge; YUMC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BYD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about BYD and YUMC?
BYD: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. YUMC: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 BYD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On YUMC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BYD and YUMC with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.