DRI vs QSR Stock Comparison
DRI currently leads QSR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 50. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between DRI and QSR?
DRI leads the current stock comparison as Darden Restaurants, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Darden Restaurants, Inc. vs Restaurant Brands International Inc.
DRI leads
DRI leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors QSR on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support DRI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Darden Restaurants, Inc.
Restaurant Brands International Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DRI over QSR, 60 versus 50 as of Oct 31, 2026. DRI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. DRI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors QSR. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DRI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. DRI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Darden Restaurants, Inc. and Restaurant Brands International Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare DRI and QSR 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.
- Momentum82 vs 63DRI +19
- Quality70 vs 55DRI +15
- Value40 vs 36DRI +4
- Risk Resilience46 vs 49Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor DRI. DRI’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
DRI's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DRI and QSR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DRI (Darden Restaurants, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
QSR (Restaurant Brands International Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations.
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
DRIDRI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
QSRQSR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DRIDRI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
DRIDRI on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
QSRQSR carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
QSRQSR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors DRI, analyst targets favor QSR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | DRI | QSR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.7% | +16.1% | QSR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.3% | +15.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 10 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | DRI | QSR |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 37.50% | 3.58% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.180 | $2.080 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $5.800 | $2.480 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #295 |
DRI grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 37.50% a year against QSR's 3.58%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DRI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DRI | 60 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 11.2% vs 11.3%; EPS growth 33.1% vs 50.5%; TTM ROE 56% vs 34.9%; gross margin 69.4% vs 44.8%; operating margin 12% vs 27.1% |
| Valuation | DRI | Value 40 vs 36 |
| Technicals | DRI | Price vs 50-day 4.6% vs -3.2%; vs 200-day 5.3% vs 0.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 46 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | QSR | Target upside 6.7% vs 16.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DRI and QSR 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.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 DRI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28DRI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DRI +10
- 60 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- DRI +5
- 60 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- DRI +7
- 48 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 57 vs 57
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when DRI moved ahead of QSR.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only DRI
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, MACD Bullish Crossover.
DRI 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 -0.14%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.82%, 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.
- 1QSR closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to DRI's edge.
- 2QSR generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3DRI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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
Split| Metric | DRI | QSR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.2% | 11.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 33.1% | 50.5% |
| Gross margin | 69.4% | 44.8% |
| Operating margin | 12% | 27.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 56% | 34.9% |
| Debt to equity | 2.74 | 4.07 |
Performance
DRI leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | DRI | QSR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1% | 0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 12.1% | 4.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.6% | 0.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.3% | -5.3% |
| Year to date | 17.7% | 9.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.7% | 10.5% |
Technicals
DRI has the stronger structure| Metric | DRI | QSR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.4 | 66.7 |
| ADX (14) | 17.9 | 20.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.6% | -3.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.3% | 0.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.8% | 20.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | DRI | QSR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.19 | 0.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.64 | 0.42 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.05 | 0.65 |
| Max drawdown | -15.1% | -15% |
| Current drawdown | -4.9% | -8.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.6% | 24.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DRI or QSR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DRI is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 60 against QSR's 50. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 DRI or QSR the better buy right now?
DRI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DRI over QSR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DRI leads Momentum by 19 points; DRI leads Quality by 15 points; DRI leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DRI or QSR?
Analyst price targets imply +6.7% upside for DRI and +16.1% for QSR, so the Street currently favors QSR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors DRI. 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, DRI or QSR?
DRI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DRI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, DRI or QSR?
QSR 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, DRI or QSR?
DRI on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, DRI or QSR?
QSR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QSR carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is DRI more profitable than QSR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 69.4% vs 44.8%; operating margin 12% vs 27.1%; ttm roe 56% vs 34.9%. DRI leads on two measures and QSR on one measure, 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 DRI's lead over QSR getting stronger or weaker?
DRI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when DRI moved ahead of QSR.
What would change the DRI vs QSR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: QSR closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to DRI's edge; QSR generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Uptrend Structure Active; DRI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about DRI and QSR?
DRI: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. QSR: 3 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 DRI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On QSR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare DRI and QSR 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.