FAT
Price
$2.56
Change
-$0.09 (-3.40%)
Updated
Jun 13 closing price
Capitalization
45.61M
47 days until earnings call
JACK
Price
$18.30
Change
-$1.20 (-6.15%)
Updated
Jun 13 closing price
Capitalization
345.49M
53 days until earnings call
Interact to see
Advertisement

FAT vs JACK

Header iconFAT vs JACK Comparison
Open Charts FAT vs JACKBanner chart's image
FAT Brands
Price$2.56
Change-$0.09 (-3.40%)
Volume$31.61K
Capitalization45.61M
Jack In The Box
Price$18.30
Change-$1.20 (-6.15%)
Volume$1.16M
Capitalization345.49M
FAT vs JACK Comparison Chart
Loading...
FAT
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
JACK
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
FAT vs. JACK commentary
Jun 15, 2025

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 JACK is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jun 15, 2025
Stock price -- (FAT: $2.56 vs. JACK: $18.30)
Brand notoriety: FAT and JACK are both not notable
Both companies represent the Restaurants industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: FAT: 64% vs. JACK: 126%
Market capitalization -- FAT: $45.61M vs. JACK: $345.49M
FAT [@Restaurants] is valued at $45.61M. JACK’s [@Restaurants] market capitalization is $345.49M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Restaurants] industry ranges from $215.88B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Restaurants] industry is $8.18B.

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 whileJACK’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).

  • FAT’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
  • JACK’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
According to our system of comparison, JACK is a better buy in the long-term than FAT.

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 JACK’s TA Score has 5 bullish TA indicator(s).

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

Price Growth

FAT (@Restaurants) experienced а +4.07% price change this week, while JACK (@Restaurants) price change was -9.81% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Restaurants industry was -0.15%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.26%, and the average quarterly price growth was +3.53%.

Reported Earning Dates

FAT is expected to report earnings on Jul 31, 2025.

JACK is expected to report earnings on Aug 06, 2025.

Industries' Descriptions

@Restaurants (-0.15% 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
JACK($345M) has a higher market cap than FAT($45.6M). FAT YTD gains are higher at: -13.631 vs. JACK (-55.428). JACK has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 138M vs. FAT (-12.82M). JACK has more cash in the bank: 75M vs. FAT (23.4M). FAT has less debt than JACK: FAT (1.48B) vs JACK (3.17B). JACK has higher revenues than FAT: JACK (1.57B) vs FAT (593M).
FATJACKFAT / JACK
Capitalization45.6M345M13%
EBITDA-12.82M138M-9%
Gain YTD-13.631-55.42825%
P/E RatioN/A9.34-
Revenue593M1.57B38%
Total Cash23.4M75M31%
Total Debt1.48B3.17B46%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
FAT vs JACK: Fundamental Ratings
FAT
JACK
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
232
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
2
Undervalued
4
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
56100
SMR RATING
1..100
1003
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
8095
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
10086
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
n/a50

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 (2) in the Restaurants industry is in the same range as JACK (4). This means that FAT’s stock grew similarly to JACK’s over the last 12 months.

FAT's Profit vs Risk Rating (56) in the Restaurants industry is somewhat better than the same rating for JACK (100). This means that FAT’s stock grew somewhat faster than JACK’s over the last 12 months.

JACK's SMR Rating (3) in the Restaurants industry is significantly better than the same rating for FAT (100). This means that JACK’s stock grew significantly faster than FAT’s over the last 12 months.

FAT's Price Growth Rating (80) in the Restaurants industry is in the same range as JACK (95). This means that FAT’s stock grew similarly to JACK’s over the last 12 months.

JACK's P/E Growth Rating (86) in the Restaurants industry is in the same range as FAT (100). This means that JACK’s stock grew similarly to FAT’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
FATJACK
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
63%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
74%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
63%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
80%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
69%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
79%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
67%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
79%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
73%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
76%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
74%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 6 days ago
82%
Bullish Trend 6 days ago
73%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
77%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
74%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
81%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
59%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
68%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
74%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
FAT
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
JACK
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
LUCD1.29-0.02
-1.53%
Lucid Diagnostics
COF192.83-4.85
-2.45%
Capital One Financial
FCF15.50-0.39
-2.45%
First Commonwealth Financial Corp
PII40.62-1.06
-2.54%
Polaris
AIP7.94-0.53
-6.26%
Arteris

FAT and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that FAT and GENK have been poorly correlated (+32% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that FAT and GENK's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To FAT
1D Price
Change %
FAT100%
-3.40%
GENK - FAT
32%
Poorly correlated
-1.23%
DENN - FAT
28%
Poorly correlated
+2.23%
JACK - FAT
27%
Poorly correlated
-6.15%
TXRH - FAT
26%
Poorly correlated
-2.33%
DIN - FAT
26%
Poorly correlated
-1.16%
More