Texas Roadhouse holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and profitability adding further support. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — Texas Roadhouse holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Texas Roadhouse's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
Most of the separation is still concentrated in stability. Texas Roadhouse, Inc. leads by 13 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Restaurants
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CMG and TXRH share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Chipotle Mexican Grill and Texas Roadhouse each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The setup remains mixed because the stronger profile and the more supportive price setup do not sit on the same side.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CMG and TXRH each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The stability gap is very wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Texas Roadhouse, Inc. also shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which makes the lead look less detached from the underlying business picture.
Stability is the clearest driver, and profitability also supports Texas Roadhouse, Inc.'s broader structural position.
Break down the CMG vs TXRH comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CMG and TXRH each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.