FAT
Price
$0.16
Change
-$1.90 (-92.23%)
Updated
Feb 3 closing price
Capitalization
3.96M
48 days until earnings call
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
RRGB
Price
$3.53
Change
-$0.17 (-4.59%)
Updated
Feb 5, 02:08 PM (EDT)
Capitalization
66.29M
27 days until earnings call
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
Interact to see
Advertisement

FAT vs RRGB

Header iconFAT vs RRGB Comparison
Open Charts FAT vs RRGBBanner chart's image
FAT Brands
Price$0.16
Change-$1.90 (-92.23%)
Volume$8.9M
Capitalization3.96M
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers
Price$3.53
Change-$0.17 (-4.59%)
Volume$100
Capitalization66.29M
FAT vs RRGB Comparison Chart in %
FAT
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
RRGB
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
FAT vs. RRGB commentary
Feb 05, 2026

To compare these two companies we present long-term analysis, their fundamental ratings and make comparative short-term technical analysis which are presented below. The conclusion is FAT is a Hold and RRGB is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Feb 05, 2026
Stock price -- (FAT: $0.16 vs. RRGB: $3.70)
Brand notoriety: FAT and RRGB are both not notable
Both companies represent the Restaurants industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: FAT: 160% vs. RRGB: 69%
Market capitalization -- FAT: $3.96M vs. RRGB: $66.29M
FAT [@Restaurants] is valued at $3.96M. RRGB’s [@Restaurants] market capitalization is $66.29M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Restaurants] industry ranges from $230.52B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Restaurants] industry is $8.28B.

Long-Term Analysis

It is best to consider a long-term outlook for a ticker by using Fundamental Analysis (FA) ratings. The rating of 1 to 100, where 1 is best and 100 is worst, is divided into thirds. The first third (a green rating of 1-33) indicates that the ticker is undervalued; the second third (a grey number between 34 and 66) means that the ticker is valued fairly; and the last third (red number of 67 to 100) reflects that the ticker is undervalued. We use an FA Score to show how many ratings show the ticker to be undervalued (green) or overvalued (red).

FAT’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileRRGB’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).

  • FAT’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
  • RRGB’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
According to our system of comparison, FAT is a better buy in the long-term than RRGB.

Short-Term Analysis

It is best to consider a short-term outlook for a ticker by using Technical Analysis (TA) indicators. We use Odds of Success as the percentage of outcomes which confirm successful trade signals in the past.

If the Odds of Success (the likelihood of the continuation of a trend) for each indicator are greater than 50%, then the generated signal is confirmed. A green percentage from 90% to 51% indicates that the ticker is in a bullish trend. A red percentage from 90% - 51% indicates that the ticker is in a bearish trend. All grey percentages are below 50% and are considered not to confirm the trend signal.

FAT’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish while RRGB’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • FAT’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 4 bearish.
  • RRGB’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 5 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, FAT is a better buy in the short-term than RRGB.

Price Growth

FAT (@Restaurants) experienced а -35.98% price change this week, while RRGB (@Restaurants) price change was -2.12% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Restaurants industry was +4.58%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.32%, and the average quarterly price growth was -5.49%.

Reported Earning Dates

FAT is expected to report earnings on Mar 25, 2026.

RRGB is expected to report earnings on Mar 04, 2026.

Industries' Descriptions

@Restaurants (+4.58% weekly)

The industry includes companies that operate full-service restaurants, fast food restaurants, cafeterias and snack bars. McDonald`s Corporation, Starbucks Corporation, YUM! Brands, Inc. and Restaurant Brands International Inc. are some of the largest U.S. restaurant-owning companies in terms of market capitalization. While restaurant spending could be viewed as discretionary for consumers, some companies in the business have been able to weather economic cycles by establishing strong loyalty among customers over the years. Many of them also have a strong global presence as well.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
RRGB($66.3M) has a higher market cap than FAT($3.96M). RRGB YTD gains are higher at: -8.642 vs. FAT (-48.315). RRGB has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 25.3M vs. FAT (-45.09M). RRGB has more cash in the bank: 21.7M vs. FAT (2.05M). RRGB has less debt than FAT: RRGB (527M) vs FAT (1.48B). RRGB has higher revenues than FAT: RRGB (1.23B) vs FAT (574M).
FATRRGBFAT / RRGB
Capitalization3.96M66.3M6%
EBITDA-45.09M25.3M-178%
Gain YTD-48.315-8.642559%
P/E RatioN/AN/A-
Revenue574M1.23B47%
Total Cash2.05M21.7M9%
Total Debt1.48B527M281%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
FAT vs RRGB: Fundamental Ratings
FAT
RRGB
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
2959
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
3
Undervalued
91
Overvalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
100100
SMR RATING
1..100
100100
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
9884
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
10096
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
85n/a

Tickeron ratings are formulated such that a rating of 1 designates the most successful stocks in a given industry, while a rating of 100 points to the least successful stocks for that industry.

FAT's Valuation (3) in the Restaurants industry is significantly better than the same rating for RRGB (91). This means that FAT’s stock grew significantly faster than RRGB’s over the last 12 months.

FAT's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the Restaurants industry is in the same range as RRGB (100). This means that FAT’s stock grew similarly to RRGB’s over the last 12 months.

FAT's SMR Rating (100) in the Restaurants industry is in the same range as RRGB (100). This means that FAT’s stock grew similarly to RRGB’s over the last 12 months.

RRGB's Price Growth Rating (84) in the Restaurants industry is in the same range as FAT (98). This means that RRGB’s stock grew similarly to FAT’s over the last 12 months.

RRGB's P/E Growth Rating (96) in the Restaurants industry is in the same range as FAT (100). This means that RRGB’s stock grew similarly to FAT’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
FATRRGB
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
86%
N/A
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
76%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
73%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
79%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
86%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
69%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
88%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
77%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
86%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
78%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
87%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 11 days ago
80%
Bullish Trend 15 days ago
81%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
78%
Bearish Trend 9 days ago
87%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
78%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
89%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
76%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
90%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
FAT
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
RRGB
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
NVYTF0.48N/A
N/A
Novacyt Clamart
NYUKF32.71N/A
N/A
Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha
PRZFF0.09N/A
N/A
Boundary Gold & Copper Mng Ltd.
FRLOF0.74N/A
N/A
FRASERS LOGISTICS & Commercial Trust
GNFTY7.20-0.29
-3.87%
GENFIT S.A.

FAT and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, FAT has been closely correlated with CNNE. These tickers have moved in lockstep 68% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if FAT jumps, then CNNE could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To FAT
1D Price
Change %
FAT100%
N/A
CNNE - FAT
68%
Closely correlated
+3.58%
GTIM - FAT
61%
Loosely correlated
+4.24%
RRGB - FAT
57%
Loosely correlated
+0.54%
PZZA - FAT
42%
Loosely correlated
+1.06%
FATBB - FAT
41%
Loosely correlated
N/A
More