Operates and licenses coffee shops worldwide, with a loyalty programme that drives habitual repeat visits.
Starbucks (SBUX) scores 5.6 out of 10 as of , computed from its reported financial statements. That reads as solid quality. The reading rests on profitability, and growth is what holds it back.
Data provided by Twelve Data. Scores are computed by Lemma Analysis from reported financials.
Operating stores directly means carrying labour and rent, so margins are more volatile than the brand suggests, and debt-funded buybacks have left equity negative. Solvency read on coverage rather than on equity is the only version that means anything here. Predictability is the pillar to watch first when store traffic turns.
On the filings behind it, Starbucks earns 5.6 out of 10 for business quality as of October 14, 2026. That is solid quality on our scale. A solid reading is a respectable business with clear strengths and at least one area that falls short of the best in its field. The figure is a weighted average of five pillars, each scored from 0 to 10 against sector-aware benchmarks from reported statements.
There are not yet enough Consumer Discretionary scores to rank Starbucks inside its sector, so the comparison below runs across all sectors. Set against 49 companies, Starbucks lands at the 26th percentile, in the weaker half of its peers. A typical company in the group scores 6.4, and the best quarter starts from 7.2. Starbucks is below that typical reading.
Starbucks’s profitability score is 7.2 out of 10 (strong). Against a median of 8.1 among 34 companies, that is below the group and the 36th percentile. Profitability in the middle of the range is neither a moat nor a warning: margins and returns look like those of an ordinary business in this line of work.
On solvency, Starbucks scores 6.0, an average reading. Its peers have a median of 7.6 across 39 companies, which places it well below them, at the 22nd percentile. An average solvency reading suggests debt is present but manageable, the normal state for a company that borrows to fund its operations.
Growth scores 1.6 out of 10, which reads as weak. The median across 47 companies is 5.3, so Starbucks is well below its peers on this pillar and ranks at the 4th percentile. When growth is this low the question is whether it is a pause or a trend, and the history behind the filings is the place to look.
Starbucks’s efficiency score is 6.5 out of 10 (average). Against a median of 6.3 among 45 companies, that is in line with the group and the 59th percentile. An average efficiency reading suggests the business turns its assets and earnings into cash at roughly the rate its sector does.
Starbucks’s predictability score is 6.5 out of 10 (average). Against a median of 5.6 among 49 companies, that is above the group and the 59th percentile. Consistency near the median is typical, and it is worth checking whether the swings came from the business itself or from one-off items.
This is a lopsided profile. Profitability scores 7.2 but growth only 1.6, a gap of 5.6 points, so the overall hides a business that is excellent in one respect and weak in another. Leading with profitability is the most valuable kind of strength, because margins and returns are what the other pillars ultimately feed. A growth shortfall often comes with size or a maturing market, and is less of a concern if the other pillars are strong.
The pillar with the most room to move the score is growth. If it rose to the median of every company scored, 5.3, Starbucks’s overall score would go from 5.6 to about 6.3. All five pillars could be scored, so the overall uses the full set of weights out of 100: profitability 25, solvency 20, growth 20, efficiency 15, predictability 20.
These are the companies whose overall scores sit closest to Starbucks’s. Each page is built the same way, so the pillars can be compared side by side.
How much profit the company generates from its capital and sales.
The company’s ability to service debt and meet its obligations.
How fast revenue, earnings and cash flow are compounding.
How well assets and earnings convert into cash and output.
How stable and consistent results have been over time.
Each metric is scored from 0 to 10 against sector-aware benchmarks, where higher is better. Metrics roll up into five pillars, and the pillars combine into the overall score using the weights shown. Sector-sensitive metrics are judged relative to peers in the same sector.
This score is a systematic, backward-looking read of reported fundamentals. It does not judge valuation, management quality, competitive moat, or future prospects, and can be distorted by one-off items or unusual accounting. Treat it as a starting point, not a recommendation.
Educational only. Not investment advice.
On this reading Starbucks scores 5.6 out of 10, which reads as solid quality. Its strongest pillar is profitability, its weakest is growth. Quality is not the same as a good investment: the score says nothing about the price you would pay.
Starbucks ranks at the 26th percentile of the 49 companies Lemma publishes a score for. The median there is 6.4 and the top quarter starts at 7.2, against Starbucks’s 5.6.
Five pillars, each scored from 0 to 10 against sector-aware benchmarks and then weighted into one overall reading: profitability, solvency, growth, efficiency and predictability. Everything comes from reported financials, and nothing comes from price, sentiment or forecasts.
This page last changed on October 14, 2026. The score moves with the financial statements, so the page changes when a new filing moves the reading rather than on a schedule. Live figures for SBUX are in the app.
No. Quality and valuation are separate questions, and a good business at the wrong price is still a bad purchase. Score the business here, then price it with a DCF you control.
Inside Lemma Analysis the same five pillars run on every company we cover, with the metrics behind each one, current fundamentals, a DCF you control and a watchlist that tells you when the price catches up.
Free to start · No credit card