Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Kura Sushi USA, Inc.
How Kura Sushi USA, Inc. stacks up
KRUS · against 582 other Consumer Cyclical companies of similar size
Growth
85/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #77 of 583 · scores higher than 87% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score51 peers with a growth score of 80–89, including KRUS · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 85?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Mainly thanks to its 3-year revenue growth and revenue growth, which are stronger than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- Still loss-making, but the loss per share narrowed. Earnings per share growth: — vs peer median 4.2%
- faster revenue growth over the last year: stronger than 88% of peers. Revenue growth: 18.4% vs peer median 3.7%
- faster revenue growth over three years: stronger than 91% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: 22.3% vs peer median 4.3%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = KRUS, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | KRUS | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 584 reported | 18.4% | 2.1% | 89% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 380 reported | Not reported | 1.2% | — | — | 33% |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 582 reported | 22.3% | 3.0% | 92% | 33% |
A metric that is not reported is left out of the score; the other weights are rescaled.
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around KRUS| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.3B MYR (≈$277M) | 100 | 60 | |
| 2 | 732.9B KRW (≈$528M) | 99 | 61 | |
| 2 | 4.8B CNY (≈$667M) | 99 | 55 | |
| 2 | 3.4B CNY (≈$470M) | 99 | 61 | |
| 2 | 293M USD | 99 | 89 | |
| 75 | 6.3B CNY (≈$882M) | 86 | 60 | |
| 75 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score