DRI vs QSR Stock Comparison
Compare DRI and QSR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
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 quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Darden Restaurants, Inc. vs Restaurant Brands International Inc.
DRI leads
DRI leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support DRI, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Darden Restaurants, Inc.
Restaurant Brands International Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DRI over QSR, 48 versus 47 as of Sep 11, 2026. DRI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while QSR holds the stronger momentum profile. DRI also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DRI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. DRI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 1 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
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 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.
- Momentum33 vs 50QSR +17
- Quality70 vs 55DRI +15
- Risk Resilience44 vs 48QSR +4
- Value40 vs 37Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor DRI. DRI’s edge is concentrated in quality; QSR keeps a meaningful momentum 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: Risk Resilience +2
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -11
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: DRI moved ahead of QSR in the latest snapshot.
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 quality.
QSR (Restaurant Brands International Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, technicals.
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
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
QSRQSR on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
QSRQSR on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
DRIDRI 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 | DRI | QSR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.9% | +9.4% | DRI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.3% | +15.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 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 | Even | 48 vs 47 |
| 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 | Even | Value 40 vs 37 |
| Technicals | QSR | Price vs 50-day 0.1% vs 1.4%; vs 200-day 2.8% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | QSR | Risk Resilience 44 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | DRI | Target upside 10.9% vs 9.4% |
✓ 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 narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 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 DRI.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10DRI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DRI +1
- 48 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- QSR +1
- 52 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- DRI +4
- 60 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- DRI +5
- 53 vs 48
The lead changed hands 8 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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.88%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.20%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
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 +1.14%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.61%, AIQ -3 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 Quality gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to DRI's edge.
- 2QSR's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3DRI'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 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate DRI'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
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
QSR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | DRI | QSR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.7% | -3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.9% | 2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.9% | 4.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2% | 6.2% |
| Year to date | 12.8% | 12.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.5% | 23.3% |
Technicals
QSR has the stronger structure| Metric | DRI | QSR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.7 | 37.5 |
| ADX (14) | 21.9 | 15.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.1% | 1.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.8% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.1% | 24.4% |
Risk
QSR is the more resilient| Metric | DRI | QSR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.21 | 0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.08 | 0.84 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.12 | 1.31 |
| Max drawdown | -20.7% | -12.5% |
| Current drawdown | -8.8% | -6.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.6% | 24.1% |
| 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 Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against QSR's 47. The edge comes from quality. QSR is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 DRI or QSR the better buy right now?
DRI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DRI over QSR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QSR leads Momentum by 17 points; DRI leads Quality by 15 points; QSR leads Risk Resilience 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 +10.9% upside for DRI and +9.4% for QSR, so the Street currently favors DRI. 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, DRI or QSR?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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?
QSR on the Momentum factor, by 17 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 on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 1 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 8 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 Quality gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to DRI's edge; QSR's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; DRI'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 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate DRI's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about DRI and QSR?
DRI: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. QSR: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 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.