Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Papa John's International, Inc.
How Papa John's International, Inc. stacks up
PZZA · against 636 other Consumer Cyclical companies of similar size
Growth
11/ 100
Near the bottom of its peers.
Ranked #547 of 637 · scores higher than 13% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score77 peers with a growth score of 10–19, including PZZA · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 11?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Mainly because of its earnings per share growth, revenue growth and 3-year revenue growth, which are weaker than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- slower growth in earnings per share: weaker than 94% of peers. Earnings per share growth: -63.6% vs peer median 4.2%
- slower revenue growth over the last year: weaker than 82% of peers. Revenue growth: -5.6% vs peer median 3.7%
- slower revenue growth over three years: weaker than 75% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: -1.8% vs peer median 4.3%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = PZZA, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | PZZA | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 638 reported | -5.6% | 2.4% | 22% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 438 reported | -63.6% | 0.4% | 9% | 33% | |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 637 reported | -1.8% | 3.5% | 28% | 33% |
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around PZZA| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7.2B CNY (≈$1.0B) | 99 | 87 | |
| 1 | 732.9B KRW (≈$528M) | 99 | 61 | |
| 1 | 4.8B CNY (≈$667M) | 99 | 55 | |
| 1 | 3.4B CNY (≈$470M) | 99 | 61 | |
| 1 | 154.7B JPY (≈$1.1B) | 99 | 77 | |
| 547 | 3.8B CNY (≈$532M) | 11 | 18 | |
| 547 |
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