Skip to main content

Pizza Wars: FCG vs. PIZZA Jan to Mar 2026 results

 

In the Philippines’ crowded casual-dining market, Figaro’s smaller pizza empire looked sharper than Shakey’s larger machine

In the restaurant trade, size is meant to confer advantages. Bigger chains buy cheaper cheese, bargain harder with landlords, and spread marketing pesos across more stores. Yet the first quarter of 2026 offered a reminder that scale is not the same as momentum. In the latest round of the Philippines’ pizza wars, Shakey’s Pizza Asia Ventures, listed as PIZZA, remained the heavyweight. It booked ₱4.0bn in revenue and ₱133.8m in net income for January to March 2026. But the nimble challenger, Figaro Culinary Group, or FCG, looked more efficient: it grew revenue faster, expanded gross profit more strongly, and delivered much fatter margins. FCG’s revenue rose 14.9% year on year to ₱1.50bn, while PIZZA’s revenue rose about 13% to ₱4.00bn.

The contrast is striking because both companies are chasing similar appetites. PIZZA owns a portfolio built around Shakey’s, Potato Corner, Peri-Peri, and other food-service brands. FCG, once more closely associated with coffee, is now increasingly a food platform with Angels Pizza as a major growth engine. The consumer backdrop was not easy. Discretionary spending remained muted, while restaurant operators still had to contend with store expansion costs, delivery platform commissions, promotions, wages, rent, and finance charges. In such conditions, the market tends to reward not only growth, but profitable growth—the sort that turns incremental sales into incremental earnings rather than just busier kitchens.

On that score, FCG had the cleaner quarter. Its gross profit climbed 16.0% to ₱674.0m, outpacing its revenue growth. That implies better conversion of sales into gross profit. Its gross margin improved to 45.1%, from 44.6% a year earlier. PIZZA’s gross profit also rose, but only by around 6.4%, to ₱803.9m, despite much higher revenue. Its gross margin slipped to 20.1%, from 21.3%. Put differently, PIZZA remained the larger food-service machine, but FCG extracted more gross profit from every peso of sales.

The bottom line told a similar story, though with an important wrinkle. PIZZA still earned more in absolute pesos: ₱133.8m in net income versus FCG’s ₱105.5m. But PIZZA’s net income fell by roughly 27% year on year, while FCG’s rose by about 3%. FCG’s net margin was 7.1%, more than twice PIZZA’s 3.3%. For shareholders, that distinction matters. A smaller company that is gaining profitability discipline can sometimes deserve more attention than a larger company whose sales are growing but whose earnings are shrinking.

PIZZA’s problem was not a lack of demand. Systemwide sales reached ₱6.38bn, up 14%, and net revenue increased to ₱4.0bn. The issue was that expansion came at a cost. The company’s operating expenses rose 17%, while operating income fell 11% to ₱254m. Its operating margin narrowed to 6.3%, from 8.0% a year earlier. Management attributed margin pressure partly to network expansion, renovations, pre-operating expenses, and brand-building efforts. That may be a sensible long-term investment. But in the short term, it made the quarter look heavy.

FCG was not immune to cost pressure either. Its net margin fell from 7.9% to 7.1%, despite the improvement in gross margin. Operating expenses and finance costs rose, muting the benefit of stronger sales and gross profit. Still, the company’s income statement looked less strained. Revenue growth flowed into gross profit growth, and net income remained positive year on year. In a sector where expansion can quickly turn into margin dilution, that is an encouraging sign.

The strategic difference may lie in the business mix. PIZZA’s portfolio is broad and increasingly international, spanning full-service restaurants, kiosks, and franchise operations. That gives it scale and optionality, but also complexity. New stores, renovations, and brand support can depress margins before they lift returns. FCG’s growth, by contrast, appears more concentrated around a strong pizza-led format, particularly Angels Pizza, which represented a large share of group revenue. FCG’s Angels Pizza revenue reached about ₱1.07bn in Jan–Mar 2026, up from ₱942.6m a year earlier, though the filing did not provide standalone Angels Pizza profit margins.

For investors, the quarter therefore offers two different propositions. PIZZA is the scale story: bigger revenue base, broader brand portfolio, larger systemwide sales, and greater national and international footprint. If its investments mature well, today’s margin compression could eventually translate into stronger earnings. But the first-quarter numbers require patience. Revenue rose, yet earnings fell. That is rarely a combination the market applauds for long unless management can show the spending is temporary and productive.

FCG is the quality-growth story: smaller, but faster-growing, with substantially higher margins. Its gross margin of 45.1% versus PIZZA’s 20.1% is the headline number. Its net margin of 7.1% versus PIZZA’s 3.3% is the confirmation. The risk is that FCG, too, may face margin pressure as it expands. Restaurant economics often look best before a chain becomes too large: early stores may be in better sites, management attention is less diluted, and the brand still feels fresh. The question is whether FCG can scale without surrendering the margin advantage that made the quarter impressive.

In the end, the first quarter did not crown a permanent winner. It revealed a difference in form. PIZZA is bigger, but it stumbled on profitability. FCG is smaller, but it showed sharper operating quality. In pizza, as in markets, the largest slice is not always the most satisfying. For Jan–Mar 2026, FCG served the hotter growth story; PIZZA served the larger, but colder, earnings plate.

We’ve been blogging for free. If you enjoy our content, consider supporting us!

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes and is not investment advice. Figures are taken from company disclosures and exchange data; valuation ratios include the author’s calculations based on cited inputs.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Ayalas didn’t “lose” Alabang Town Center—They cashed out like disciplined capital allocators

We’ve been blogging for free. If you enjoy our content, consider supporting us! If you only read the headline—Ayala Land exits Alabang Town Center (ATC)—you might mistake it for a retreat, or worse, a concession to the Madrigal–Bayot clan. But the paper trail tells a more nuanced story: the Ayalas weren’t unwilling to buy out the Madrigals; they simply didn’t need to—and didn’t want to at that price, at that point in the cycle. And that’s exactly where the contrast with the Lopezes begins. In late December 2025, Lopez-controlled Rockwell Land stepped in to buy a controlling 74.8% stake in the ATC-owning company for ₱21.6 billion—explicitly pitching long-term redevelopment upside as the prize. A week earlier, Ayala Land (ALI) signed an agreement to sell its 50% stake for ₱13.5 billion after an unsolicited premium offer —and said it would redeploy proceeds into its leasing growth pipeline and return of capital to stakeholders. Same asset. Two mindsets. 1) Why buy what you already co...

From Meralco to Rockwell: How the Lopezes Restructured to Put Rockwell Land Under FPH’s Control

  The Big Picture In the span of just a few years, the Lopez family executed a complex corporate restructuring that shifted Rockwell Land Corporation firmly under First Philippine Holdings Corporation (FPH) —even as they parted with “precious” equity in Manila Electric Company (Meralco) to make it happen. The strategy wove together property dividends, special block sales, and the monetization of legacy assets, ultimately consolidating one of the Philippines’ most admired property brands inside the Lopezes’ flagship holding company.  Laying the Groundwork (1996–2009) Rockwell began as First Philippine Realty and Development Corporation and was rebranded Rockwell Land in 1995. A pivotal capital infusion in September 1996 brought in three major shareholders— Meralco , FPH , and Benpres (now Lopez Holdings) —setting up a tripartite structure that would endure for more than a decade.  By August 2009 , the Lopezes made a decisive move: Benpres sold its 24.5% Rockwell stake...

Lopez, Gokongwei, Gatchalian, Romualdez: The PCIBank Boardroom Drama

  By early 1999, PCIBank had become more than one of the Philippines’ largest lenders; it had become a test of whether a major bank could remain stable when its ownership rested on a fragile balance between two business clans. Publicly accessible historical sources identify Eugenio Lopez Jr. as chairman and John Gokongwei Jr. as vice-chairman of PCIBank before the sale to Equitable, showing that the institution was effectively run through a dual-center power structure at the top.  What happened beneath that formal structure is harder to document with certainty. It was allegedly governed by a shareholder arrangement between the Lopez and Gokongwei groups that allowed the two camps to share control of PCIBank, with Mr Lopez as chairman and Mr Gokongwei, though vice-chairman, allegedly exercising influence through the bank’s executive committee. We have not found the actual shareholder agreement in the public sources reviewed here, so that part of the story should be trea...