CMG vs. EAT
CMG (Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.) and EAT (Brinker International, Inc.) are both stocks. Both operate in the Restaurants industry within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Over the past 10 years, CMG returned 16.62%/yr vs 17.62%/yr for EAT. Their 0.38 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship.
Performance
CMG vs. EAT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CMG achieves a 4.11% return, which is significantly lower than EAT's 46.22% return. Over the past 10 years, CMG has underperformed EAT with an annualized return of 16.62%, while EAT has yielded a comparatively higher 17.62% annualized return.
CMG
- 1D
- 12.50%
- 1M
- 13.29%
- 6M
- -1.48%
- YTD
- 4.11%
- 1Y
- -11.97%
- 3Y*
- -0.62%
- 5Y*
- 0.66%
- 10Y*
- 16.62%
- ALL TIME*
- 20.10%
EAT
- 1D
- 2.01%
- 1M
- 24.92%
- 6M
- 30.64%
- YTD
- 46.22%
- 1Y
- 26.51%
- 3Y*
- 74.82%
- 5Y*
- 31.03%
- 10Y*
- 17.62%
- ALL TIME*
- 13.45%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $627.39M | $606.03M | $625.84M | |
| $211.37M | $199.32M | $167.61M |
CMG vs. EAT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMG Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. | 4.11% | -38.64% | 31.83% | 64.83% | -20.64% | 26.07% | 65.65% | 93.87% | 49.39% | -23.40% |
EAT Brinker International, Inc. | 46.22% | 8.49% | 206.37% | 35.32% | -12.79% | -35.32% | 36.16% | -0.92% | 17.27% | -18.44% |
Correlation
The correlation between CMG and EAT is 0.43, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.43 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.33 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.39 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.33 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 26, 2006 | 0.38 |
The correlation between CMG and EAT shifts across timeframes, from 0.33 (10 years) to 0.43 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
CMG:
$49.42B
EAT:
$9.00B
CMG:
$1.08
EAT:
$10.20
CMG:
35.63
EAT:
20.57
CMG:
1.34
EAT:
0.47
CMG:
4.07
EAT:
1.66
CMG:
22.60
EAT:
23.00
CMG:
$12.42B
EAT:
$5.73B
CMG:
$5.89B
EAT:
$3.45B
CMG:
$2.25B
EAT:
$807.20M
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CMG vs. EAT — Risk / Return Rank
CMG
EAT
CMG vs. EAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (CMG) and Brinker International, Inc. (EAT). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| CMG | EAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.86 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.28 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.98 | 1.13 | -0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.33 | 0.72 | -1.06 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.61 | 1.80 | -2.40 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CMG vs. EAT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CMG drawdown since its inception was -74.61%, smaller than the maximum EAT drawdown of -88.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMG and EAT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CMG | EAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -74.61% | -88.40% | +13.79% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -36.01% | -36.79% | +0.78% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -58.89% | -45.92% | -12.97% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -58.89% | -59.80% | +0.91% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -58.89% | -84.94% | +26.05% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -43.81% | 0.00% | -43.81% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -21.55% | -24.27% | +2.72% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 19.83% | 15.63% | +4.20% |
Volatility
CMG vs. EAT - Volatility Comparison
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (CMG) has a higher volatility of 17.03% compared to Brinker International, Inc. (EAT) at 10.82%. This indicates that CMG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CMG | EAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 17.03% | 10.82% | +6.21% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 28.85% | 36.28% | -7.43% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 39.77% | 47.76% | -7.99% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 34.17% | 48.74% | -14.57% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 35.96% | 55.26% | -19.30% |
Dividends
CMG vs. EAT - Dividend Comparison
Neither CMG nor EAT has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMG Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
EAT Brinker International, Inc. | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.67% | 3.62% | 3.46% | 3.71% | 2.67% | 2.50% |
Financials
CMG vs. EAT - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Brinker International, Inc.. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.
Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities
CMG vs. EAT - Profitability Comparison
CMG - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jul 2026, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. reported a gross profit of 2.34B and revenue of 3.35B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 69.8%.
EAT - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jul 2026, Brinker International, Inc. reported a gross profit of 1.10B and revenue of 1.47B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 74.6%.
CMG - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jul 2026, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. reported an operating income of 525.60M and revenue of 3.35B, resulting in an operating margin of 15.7%.
EAT - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jul 2026, Brinker International, Inc. reported an operating income of 166.60M and revenue of 1.47B, resulting in an operating margin of 11.3%.
CMG - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jul 2026, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. reported a net income of 403.55M and revenue of 3.35B, resulting in a net margin of 12.1%.
EAT - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jul 2026, Brinker International, Inc. reported a net income of 127.90M and revenue of 1.47B, resulting in a net margin of 8.7%.
Frequently Asked Questions
CMG and EAT have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CMG has higher volatility (17.03%) compared to EAT (10.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CMG dropped -74.61% vs EAT's -88.40%.
EAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.56 vs -0.30), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for CMG and EAT
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer