A Tale of Two Coffee Chains: Dutch Bros vs. Starbucks

In many American cities, the morning caffeine rush now offers a distinct choice. On one side is the familiar Starbucks café – baristas calling out names as customers cradle lattes in a cozy corner or grab mobile orders off the counter. On the other is Dutch Bros – a smaller drive-thru hut where a line of cars snakes forward, energetic “bro-istas” lean out the window to chat, and music pulses through the kiosk. This juxtaposition of Starbucks’ international café empire and Dutch Bros’ regional drive-thru culture encapsulates a broader story in the coffee business. One is a global icon synonymous with urban coffeehouse culture; the other, a fast-growing upstart that has cultivated a cult following with speedy service and a youthful vibe. As Dutch Bros expands beyond its West Coast roots to challenge Starbucks on its home turf, an investigative look at their performance data, market positioning, and unit economics reveals two very different formulas for selling coffee in America.

Market Penetration and Expansion

Starbucks is the undisputed giant of coffee retail, with a geographic footprint that spans the globe. The company operates approximately 22,000 stores worldwide, occupying about 45 million square feet of real estate. Starbucks outlets are ubiquitous in major cities and suburbs, and the brand has a presence in over 80 countries. Its growth strategy over decades has been one of aggressive expansion – saturating urban centers and then extending into drive-thru locations and international markets. In the United States alone, Starbucks commands roughly 30% of the entire coffee shop market by revenue. This dominance has been built through a combination of owned stores and licensed locations, enabling Starbucks to scale rapidly and plant its green siren logo in virtually every community. Even as the company nears saturation in some regions, it continues to find growth overseas (particularly in China and other emerging markets) and through new formats like smaller pickup-only stores. The sheer scale of Starbucks’ penetration means that for many consumers “going out for coffee” often defaults to visiting a Starbucks by convenience and familiarity.

Dutch Bros, by contrast, remains a regional challenger that is now scaling up nationally. Founded in 1992 as a small push-cart in Grants Pass, Oregon, Dutch Bros spent decades as a beloved fixture in the Pacific Northwest. Only in recent years has it embarked on a hyper-growth trajectory across the United States. As of late 2025, Dutch Bros operates about 1,100 shops across 18 states – a fraction of Starbucks’ store count, but growing fast. Importantly, Dutch Bros locations are almost exclusively drive-thru kiosks with no interior seating, a model that defines its expansion strategy. The chain clusters multiple outlets in its core markets to meet demand (sometimes “fortressing” areas by opening new shops near busy ones to shorten lines), then pushes into new states in the Sunbelt and Heartland. After a successful IPO in 2021, Dutch Bros outlined bold ambitions: it now sees potential for over 7,000 stores nationwide in the long term, up from an initial target of 4,000. This goal – to roughly double its store count to ~2,000 by 2029 and eventually quintuple it – underscores Dutch Bros’ expansion ethos. Unlike Starbucks, which has a significant international footprint, Dutch Bros is focused entirely on the U.S. market for now. The chain’s growth playbook emphasizes rapid unit development (adding roughly 130–150 shops per year recently) and penetrating new territories where the Dutch Bros brand is still a novelty. From Texas to Tennessee, new drive-thru stands have been popping up, often drawing long lines of curious customers upon arrival. In short, Starbucks gained its scale through decades of global expansion and omnipresence, whereas Dutch Bros is in the midst of a steep growth curve, betting that its regional success can translate into a coast-to-coast phenomenon.

This difference in market penetration is also reflected in each company’s strategic format. Starbucks built its empire on the “third place” café concept – inviting stores where people might linger over coffee, work on laptops, or meet friends. Many Starbucks locations are sit-down cafés averaging about 2,000 square feet each, often located in prime retail areas or city centers. (The company’s total occupied square footage is about 45 million, roughly 2,045 SF per store on average.) In recent years, Starbucks has adapted to consumer trends by incorporating more drive-thru lanes and smaller footprint stores (including express pickup shops), but the brand’s identity remains tied to the café experience. By contrast, Dutch Bros has from inception focused on the drive-thru model, generally eschewing indoor seating altogether. A typical Dutch Bros stand is a compact building (often around 900–1,500 square feet), double-sided drive-thru lanes, and maybe a walk-up window – designed purely for speed and volume. The company’s total real estate footprint is about 1.5 million square feet for its 1,100 locations (averaging only ~1,360 SF per shop). This small-footprint strategy allows Dutch Bros to enter markets with lower building costs and cheaper leases. Indeed, according to MMCG’s analysis, Dutch Bros’ smaller properties translate to lower construction costs and rents – a significant advantage as it scales. The trade-off is that Dutch Bros doesn’t offer the in-café ambiance that Starbucks does; instead, it competes by maximizing convenience and throughput for customers on the go.

Revenue and Performance Metrics

The financial profiles of Starbucks and Dutch Bros reflect their stark difference in scale and operating models. Starbucks is a revenue behemoth, with annual sales of about $36 billion (FY2023). That dwarfs Dutch Bros, whose annual revenue is around $1.3 billion – a figure Starbucks generates roughly every two weeks. Yet growth investors find Dutch Bros intriguing because of its rapid sales trajectory: Dutch’s revenues have been climbing at double-digit rates (the company reported a 44% jump in quarterly sales at the end of 2022), whereas Starbucks, as a mature company, grows in the single digits or low teens. Still, in absolute terms, Starbucks’ top line dominance is clear, and it extends to many performance metrics.

Revenue per store is one area where the two companies are surprisingly closer than one might expect. The average Starbucks location earns roughly $1.6 million in annual revenue (total revenue divided by ~22k stores). A typical Dutch Bros shop isn’t far behind, averaging about $1.1–1.2 million per unit. This is notable: despite Dutch Bros’ smaller physical size and regional focus, its unit volumes are in the same ballpark as Starbucks’. In fact, Dutch Bros’ busiest stands can exceed $2 million in yearly sales, and the company cites a “sweet spot” of $1.7–1.8 million for its newer shops once they mature. High traffic and rapid service (sometimes on two-lane drive-thrus) enable each Dutch Bros kiosk to punch above its weight in sales. Starbucks, for its part, benefits from a vast base of high-performing urban stores and a broadly diversified menu (including food) to drive per-store revenue. The slightly higher average revenue at Starbucks stores also reflects its more developed markets and higher price points on certain items. Still, Dutch Bros’ ability to generate over a million dollars per small shop each year underscores the efficiency of its model and the devotion of its customer base (some patrons visit daily for their handcrafted cold brews and flavored energy drinks).

When it comes to labor efficiency and productivity, Starbucks holds an edge by sheer numbers. With about 381,000 employees globally, Starbucks generates roughly $95,000 in revenue per employee (using the figures above). Dutch Bros, with around 24,000 employees, produces approximately $53,000 per employee. This gap suggests that Starbucks, on average, gets more sales out of each worker – likely due to its scale efficiencies, higher transaction volumes in busy city stores, and perhaps greater use of technology (mobile ordering, automated espresso machines, etc.) to complement labor. Dutch Bros intentionally staffs its drive-thrus with enthusiastic teams to keep lines moving and deliver a personal touch, which can mean more employees per dollar of sales. (It’s not uncommon to see a Dutch Bros stand with several “bro-istas” taking orders on iPads and dancing to music as they work, creating a fun atmosphere but also a labor-intensive operation.) The labor-intensity of the coffee business is in fact a broader industry trait: industry-wide, wages and benefits consume about 32% of revenue on average. Both companies face the reality that making customized drinks one cup at a time is hard to dramatically scale without people. Starbucks has been grappling with this through operational refinements and equipment upgrades, while Dutch Bros leans into a high-energy, high-touch service style that by design uses more staff per store.

Profitability is another differentiator. Starbucks, as a well-established firm, enjoys healthy profits even after all expenses. In its most recent fiscal year, Starbucks’ net profit margin was about 11–12%, a strong bottom-line result for a foodservice business. By leveraging its massive scale and efficient supply chain, Starbucks can achieve economies of scale that smaller competitors struggle with – evidenced by the fact that larger companies in this industry tend to have higher profit margins. Starbucks’ profit margins dipped during the pandemic (net margin fell to 3.9% in 2020 amid store shutdowns) but have since rebounded, and the company has managed to expand its operating margin back into the mid-to-high teens through price increases and productivity improvements. Dutch Bros, on the other hand, is still in an early stage of profitability. The company only recently turned a meaningful profit after years of plowing revenue back into expansion. In 2023, Dutch Bros was essentially at break-even with a net margin near 0%, and by 2024 it achieved roughly a 5% net profit margin as higher sales finally outpaced its growing expenses. This trend – from negative earnings to slim positive margins – reflects Dutch Bros’ growth-phase economics: new shops carry upfront costs and overhead needs to scale, which kept overall profits low. Now, as those investments start to pay off, Dutch Bros is moving toward sustained profitability, though its margins remain well below Starbucks’. It’s worth noting that at the store level, Dutch Bros reports healthy shop contribution margins (in the 20-30% range), but corporate expenses and expansion costs whittle down the net income. For Starbucks, mature profitability also comes with new pressures – for instance, the company faces rising labor and input costs industry-wide, and it has had to carefully manage pricing to protect its margins without alienating customers. (Industry profit margins have actually declined to around 2.7% on average in 2025 across all coffee shops due to higher costs – far below Starbucks’ margin, underscoring how well Starbucks performs relative to the typical coffee shop.)

Another interesting metric is revenue per square foot of retail space, a measure of how effectively each company utilizes its real estate. Starbucks generates roughly $800 in annual revenue per square foot (using $36B over 45M SF) – a testament to the volume of sales in its cafes, which is on par with some of the top-performing retailers. Dutch Bros, thanks to its tiny shops and high output, achieves about $850 per square foot, slightly higher than Starbucks on this metric. In other words, Dutch Bros squeezes a remarkable amount of sales from very small spaces – an efficiency born of its drive-thru-only approach (where virtually the entire building is dedicated to production and service, not customer seating). Both companies far exceed the industry average in sales per square foot, reflecting the fundamentally strong economics of selling coffee and beverages (a high-margin product) from relatively small outlets. For context, many quick-service restaurant chains average only a few hundred dollars of revenue per square foot, so $800+ is an indicator of robust unit economics. This high sales density bodes well for landlords and investors: it suggests both Starbucks and Dutch Bros can afford decent rents and still be profitable, and it explains why shopping center owners often covet a Starbucks on their pad or a Dutch Bros drive-thru in their parking lot.

Lastly, in assessing financial strength, credit ratings and risk provide a telling comparison. According to MMCG’s proprietary credit risk database, Starbucks is rated “C – 44” on a certain tenant credit scale, whereas Dutch Bros scores an “A – 99”. This counterintuitive result reflects how each company’s balance sheet and growth profile look from a real estate perspective. Starbucks, while immensely profitable, has taken on significant debt in recent years (partly to fund stock buybacks), resulting in a leveraged balance sheet – Starbucks actually has a negative total equity position on its books as of 2023, which can be seen as a risk factor. Dutch Bros, by contrast, is relatively low-debt and freshly capitalized from its IPO; it’s also in expansion mode, eagerly snapping up leases for new stores. Landlords see Dutch Bros as a hot growth tenant (hence a strong credit score in this context), whereas Starbucks, despite its size, may not be viewed as quitethe darling in terms of leasing risk – it’s a mature company that has closed underperforming stores before and negotiates hard on rents. In practical terms, both companies are solid tenants, but Dutch Bros’ rapid growth and cleaner balance sheet give it a top-tier credit risk rating (A) (as a tenant risk value), versus a more middling rating (C) for Starbucks. This is an intriguing angle where the upstart scores higher than the giant, highlighting different financial strategies: Starbucks uses its heft to return capital to shareholders (with more debt on the books), while Dutch Bros is focused on reinvestment and growth, keeping its financial house a bit leaner for now.

To summarize some of these key figures, below is a side-by-side comparison of Starbucks and Dutch Bros on critical metrics:

Table 1: Key Metrics – Starbucks vs. Dutch Bros

Metric	Starbucks	Dutch Bros
Number of Locations	~22,000 stores (worldwide)	~1,100 stores (US only)
Annual Revenue (latest)	$36.2 billion	$1.28 billion
Total Employees	~381,000	~24,000
Total Occupied Sq. Ft.	~45 million	~1.5 million
Avg. Revenue per Employee	~$95,000 (global)	~$53,000
Avg. Revenue per Sq. Ft.	~$804/sq ft	~$853/sq ft

Sources: MMCG database (store counts, revenue, employees, and occupied square footage). Revenue per employee and per square foot are MMCG calculations based on the same data.

Location Strategy and Real Estate Analytics

The physical presence and real estate strategy of Starbucks and Dutch Bros underscore how each business model differs. Starbucks locations are often found in high-traffic retail corridors, downtown street corners, shopping center pads, airports, college campuses – you name it. The company’s occupied footprint of 45 million square feet makes it one of the largest retail tenants in the world. Notably, about 84% of that space is classified as retail use, meaning the vast majority of Starbucks’ real estate is its cafes and stores (the remainder likely offices, roasting plants, and distribution centers). Starbucks historically invested in creating inviting store environments, sometimes with large seating areas, upscale décor (especially in flagship Reserve stores), and amenities like free Wi-Fi to encourage customers to stay. This strategy, while great for building brand experience, comes with high occupancy costs – big stores in prime locations mean significant rent and upkeep. In recent times, Starbucks has adjusted its approach: the company has shifted toward a “pickup-centric” model in some markets, adding more drive-thru lanes and smaller formats as consumer preferences tilt toward speed. It has also closed certain underperforming or oversized stores (including some urban cafes where foot traffic didn’t recover post-pandemic), replacing them with drive-thrus or relocating to areas with better car access. Starbucks now reports that a majority of new U.S. stores feature drive-thru windows, reflecting the reality that many customers value convenience as much as the in-café atmosphere. Still, even with these tweaks, an average Starbucks store remains roughly 2–3 times the size of a Dutch Bros stand, and Starbucks spends considerable capital on build-out and design for each location.

Dutch Bros, being drive-thru only, pursues a very different real estate play. Dutch Bros shops are typically small-footprint standalone structures, often built on inexpensive parcels of land such as corner lots or as pad sites in front of bigger retailers. With an average of ~1,300–1,400 square feet per shop, these stores are essentially glorified kiosks with two drive-thru lanes wrapped around them. There is no indoor seating, which means Dutch Bros can thrive in locations that might be too small or oddly shaped for a full café. The occupied real estate of the entire Dutch Bros chain (1.5 million sq. ft.) is about equal to just one of Manhattan’s large office towers – spread out across 1,100 little sites. This lean spatial footprint is a strategic advantage: Dutch Bros can enter secondary or suburban markets with lower land and rental costs, and its prototype stores are relatively cheap to construct. A new Dutch Bros might be built on a half-acre plot with a prefab drive-thru building, whereas a new Starbucks in a city could involve expensive interior build-outs or retrofitting historic storefronts. The economics of Dutch Bros’ real estate mean the company can be nimbler in choosing locations – often focusing on drive-thru accessibility over foot traffic or prestige. For example, Dutch Bros doesn’t need to be on Main & Main in a city center; it can do just as well along a busy arterial road or near a highway exit, catching commuters in cars. As a result, Dutch Bros often complements rather than competes for the exact same sites as Starbucks. In some cases, though, the two do face off – e.g. a Starbucks and Dutch Bros across the street from each other on a suburban thoroughfare, each with drive-thru lines, each catering to its loyalists.

From a real estate analytics perspective, consider occupied square footage per store and its implications. Starbucks’ ~2,045 SF per store, as noted, includes seating and a full customer area, which is space that doesn’t directly generate sales but enhances the experience. Dutch Bros’ ~1,364 SF per store is mostly dedicated to production (coffee machines, syrups, drive-thru windows, storage) and a small crew area; every square foot is used for making and handing out drinks. The efficiency of revenue per square foot we discussed shows how Dutch Bros maximizes its smaller boxes (about $850/sf vs. $800/sf for Starbucks). Furthermore, the share of space classified as retail is high for both (Starbucks 84%, Dutch Bros 87%), meaning nearly all their real estate is customer-facing. Dutch Bros does carry a bit of non-retail space – around 13% of its footprint – likely for regional offices or its roasting facility and distribution. Starbucks, being larger, has a bit more non-store space (16% of its total), including its corporate headquarters and perhaps large roasting plants.

One can also examine revenue per location to gauge how well each store format performs. We calculated Starbucks at about $1.6M per store and Dutch Bros at ~$1.2M. It’s interesting to overlay that with the occupied square feet per location: Starbucks generates roughly $800 per sq ft in a 2,000-sf store; Dutch Bros generates ~$850 per sq ft in a 1,300-sf store – which aligns with the idea that Dutch Bros’ model is slightly more space-efficient for sales. However, from a capacity standpoint, Starbucks stores can accommodate more customers simultaneously (with multiple baristas making drinks for a line of people inside, plus mobile orders, plus drive-thru in many cases). Dutch Bros can only serve via the drive-thru window, which creates a physical limit (cars moving one by one). To mitigate that, Dutch often deploys staff to take orders in advance in the drive-thru queue and keeps service extremely fast, targeting something like 30 seconds per drink at the window. Even so, there is a natural ceiling to how many cars can flow through in an hour.

Starbucks can have a drive-thru plus in-store pickup happening concurrently, giving it a throughput advantage in busy periods. This difference is one reason Starbucks stores in very dense areas (or highway-adjacent spots) can hit multi-million dollar revenues. Dutch Bros, aware of this, pursues its fortressing strategy: rather than building bigger stores, it opens another small unit nearby when lines get too long. That approach can reduce average unit volumes in a region (because sales get split between two shops), but it preserves customer experience by cutting wait times. It’s essentially a decentralization strategy versus Starbucks’ tendency historically to build one big café per trade area. Real estate analytics from MMCG indicate that having smaller stores also helps Dutch Bros adapt to various site sizes and avoid high rents, whereas Starbucks’ larger stores mean it must be more selective and often pay top dollar for prime spots. This shows up in operational ratios: for instance, Dutch Bros’ occupied SF per location is about two-thirds of Starbucks’, and its revenue per location is roughly 70% of Starbucks’, yet Dutch Bros’ rent expenses (as a % of sales) tend to be lower due to cheaper sites (anecdotal industry data suggests Starbucks might pay rent equivalent to 8-10% of store sales in pricey markets, while Dutch Bros, with cheaper land and buildings, may pay a lower percentage). These ratios illustrate how real estate strategy directly ties into unit economics.

Table 2: Operational Ratios Comparison

Operational Metric	Starbucks	Dutch Bros
Net Profit Margin (latest FY)	~11%	~2–5%
Occupied SF per Store	~2,045 SF	~1,364 SF
Avg. Revenue per Store	~$1.64 million	~$1.16 million
Tenant Credit Rating (MMCG)	C – 44	A – 99

Sources: MMCG database and filings. Profit margins are based on recent financial year results (Starbucks FY2023, Dutch Bros FY2024). Credit rating is MMCG’s tenant risk score. Square footage and revenue per store from MMCG tenant data.

Brand Power and Consumer Loyalty

Beyond the hard numbers, the rivalry between Starbucks and Dutch Bros is also a story of brand power and how each cultivates customer loyalty. Starbucks is one of the most recognized brands on the planet, synonymous with coffee for millions of people. It achieved this status through consistent products, ubiquitous presence, and savvy marketing that turned items like the Pumpkin Spice Latte into cultural phenomena. Starbucks’ brand carries a certain cachet – for some, it’s a daily necessity or a small luxury; for others, it’s an easy target to lampoon as corporate or cliche. Love it or not, Starbucks has built an enormous and resilient following. One of the crown jewels of Starbucks’ strategy is its mobile app and loyalty program, Starbucks Rewards. In the U.S., Starbucks Rewards has about 33 million active members – a staggering number that exceeds the population of many countries. Those loyalty members drive a majority of Starbucks’ sales (nearly 60% of U.S. revenue by some estimates), as the program incentivizes frequent purchases with free drinks and perks. Starbucks effectively gamified buying coffee, and it paid off: customers check their app balances, earn stars, and often won’t consider defecting to a competitor because they’re so embedded in the Starbucks ecosystem. The mobile app also enables extremely convenient ordering and payment – one can order a latte en route and find it ready on the counter, a frictionless experience that keeps busy consumers coming back. Starbucks was an early mover in this space (introducing mobile order & pay in 2014, well ahead of most rivals), and that tech leadership has reinforced customer stickiness. Additionally, Starbucks invests heavily in digital engagement, personalized offers, and even tie-ins with popular culture (e.g. special edition gift cards or tumbler designs for blockbuster movies), which keep the brand culturally relevant.

Dutch Bros, on the other hand, has built a different kind of cult loyalty, one that until recently was more analog and regional, but is now scaling with technology. The Dutch Bros brand trades on a friendly, community-oriented image – their tagline is “Dutch Luv,” and many customers form personal connections with their local bro-istas. It’s not uncommon in Dutch Bros territory to see cars sporting the company’s stickers or for high schoolers to treat a Dutch Bros run as a social outing. The brand has a youthful, even somewhat rebellious energy (colorful menu, peppy service, loud music at the stands) that sets it apart from the more standardized Starbucks vibe. As Dutch Bros expands, it has wisely introduced its own loyalty program and mobile app (Dutch Rewards) to foster customer retention. Launched in 2021, the Dutch Rewards app quickly gained traction – by early 2023 it had over 3 million active members in a 90-day period, which averaged out to an impressive ~4,600 loyalty users per store. The loyalty program drove about 64% of Dutch Bros transactions as of 2023, a figure even higher than Starbucks’ proportion of sales via rewards. This is a striking achievement for a smaller chain: it suggests that once Dutch Bros customers join the app, they channel the bulk of their coffee spending through it, earning points for free drinks and engaging with targeted promotions. Dutch Bros’ CEO noted that the company’s long-term “playbook” relies heavily on its rewards program to personalize marketing and drive repeat visits. For instance, Dutch Bros can now send customized offers – if you’re a midday regular, you might get a special coupon for an afternoon smoothie, while another customer might get a morning latte promo. This individualized approach (even allowing users to share reward points with friends as a social feature) is designed to deepen loyalty in a way that feels very on-brand for Dutch Bros – more informal and community-driven, perhaps, than Starbucks’ app.

Both companies also leverage social media and cultural engagement to bolster their brands, but in distinct ways. Starbucks, with its global platform, often leads broad campaigns – whether it’s a holiday season red cup tradition or engaging in social issues (like front-line worker support or sustainability pledges). Dutch Bros tends to keep things hyper-local and youth-focused: their social media might highlight a new drink with quirky flavors or celebrate “Dutch Bros Day” with community charity events. On platforms like TikTok and Instagram, Dutch Bros has benefited from user-generated hype – young fans post about secret menu concoctions or the upbeat experience at the drive-thru. Starbucks is certainly all over social media as well, but often it’s the customers setting trends (the annual frenzy for Pumpkin Spice, the secret menu hacks like “Pink Drink” that went viral) and Starbucks then responding. In terms of favoritism and sentiment, one could say Starbucks has a broader range – some coffee aficionados prefer independent cafes over Starbucks, criticizing it as mass-market, while many loyalists won’t switch because of convenience and consistency. Dutch Bros, not being everywhere yet, doesn’t face the same level of saturation backlash – in regions where it operates, it enjoys a kind of “underdog cool” status, particularly among younger consumers who see it as more fun and personable. There’s a bit of a tribe mentality: people who love Dutch Bros really love it, and will enthusiastically recommend the brand to newcomers (often suggesting their favorite drink, which might have a wacky name like “Electric Berry Rebel”). Starbucks, due to its sheer scale, likely inspires less gushing fandom in day-to-day conversation (it’s simply there for everyone), but its brand equity shows up in other ways – for example, Starbucks consistently ranks among the top restaurant brands in global value and has a devoted following for things like the Starbucks merchandise (collectible mugs, tumblers) and the status that the rewards program confers (e.g. reaching Gold status used to be a badge of honor for frequent customers).

Another aspect of brand power is how companies navigate challenges that can affect customer perception. Starbucks in recent years has faced a growing unionization movement among its baristas in the U.S., which has garnered significant media attention. A number of Starbucks stores (several hundred) have voted to unionize since late 2021, seeking higher wages and improved working conditions. Starbucks’ corporate management has taken a firm stance against unionization efforts, which has been a delicate situation – on one hand, the company has a reputation for offering better benefits than many foodservice employers (healthcare, tuition programs, etc.), yet the union push suggests a segment of employees feel unheard. Thus far, the unionization has been limited to a small fraction of Starbucks’ overall store base, but it presents a risk to brand image: some customers, especially younger ones, are very tuned into how companies treat employees. Negative press around labor disputes could nudge socially conscious consumers toward alternative coffee options. Dutch Bros, by virtue of being smaller and located largely in less union-focused regions, has not encountered any comparable union drive. In fact, Dutch Bros prides itself on a strong internal culture – they often promote from within (many franchisees and managers started as bro-istas in the stands) and report relatively low staff turnover (~75%) for the quick-service industry. That camaraderie and positive employee vibe translate into friendly customer service, which in turn reinforces the brand’s upbeat reputation. While Starbucks employees are generally friendly too, the scale of the company means experiences can vary widely by location; Dutch Bros’ smaller footprint perhaps allows for a more consistent “smiles and high-fives” service ethos that customers notice.

Industry Context and Outlook

The face-off between Starbucks and Dutch Bros is happening against the backdrop of an evolving coffee and snack shop industry that is both robust and competitive. In the United States, the industry’s annual revenues have grown to roughly $73 billion in 2025, encompassing not just Starbucks and Dutch Bros, but also other players like Dunkin’ (a major rival to Starbucks in the East), boutique coffee houses, bakery-cafes, juice and smoothie bars, and countless independent coffee shops. Starbucks alone accounts for about 30% of the industry by revenue, a testament to its market power, while Dutch Bros’ market share is still modest (on the order of 1–2%). Industry-wide trends have been favorable in recent years – after a dip during 2020’s lockdowns, Americans have returned eagerly to their coffee routines. Total sector revenue grew as consumers sought out specialty coffees and quick snacks, and many chains, including Starbucks and Dutch Bros, saw sales hit record levels in 2021–2022 as stimulus money and post-COVID routines kicked in. However, growth is projected to moderate going forward. According to MMCG’s analysis, U.S. coffee/snack shop revenue is expected to rise at only about 0.6% annually over the next five years (2025–2030), reaching an estimated $75 billion by 2030. This tepid growth outlook (lagging behind general GDP growth) suggests the market is maturing. Major chains will increasingly be competing for market share rather than riding a wave of expanding consumption. For Starbucks, which already has such a large slice of the pie, this could mean focusing on increasing spend per customer (through new products or price increases) and international growth. For Dutch Bros, it underscores the need to continue stealing share from others and creating new occasions for consumers to choose Dutch Bros over the competition.

One factor that could influence growth is consumer behavior shifts. The pandemic changed how many people get their coffee – drive-thru and takeout orders surged relative to dine-in. Dutch Bros was naturally positioned to benefit from that, while Starbucks had to pivot quickly (which it did, leaning on drive-thrus and mobile pickup). As normalcy returns, another shift is the partial return to offices: many workers who were remote are going back to commuting at least a few days a week. This is a boon for coffee shops situated near workplaces or along commute routes. In fact, about 90% of companies plan to have office employees on a hybrid or full in-person schedule by 2025, which could lift weekday coffee demand. Starbucks, with its dense network including downtown locations, stands to regain some business from office workers grabbing a morning brew or an afternoon pick-me-up. Dutch Bros, which often targets suburban hubs and drive-thru commuters, also benefits from people being out and about more. The key is that both companies must align their store formats to where the customers are: Starbucks has been opening more suburban drive-thrus since those were the star performers during the work-from-home era, and Dutch Bros will likely eye sites near expanding office parks or travel corridors to capture returning commuters.

Pricing and inflation are another part of the industry context. Coffee commodity prices have been volatile, and overall inflation in the past couple of years drove up everything from dairy costs to labor expenses. Coffee shops responded with price increases, which consumers largely accepted, though not without some grumbling. For example, the average price of a fancy coffee drink in New York City crossed $7 in 2023 – a psychological milestone that made headlines. Starbucks implemented several price hikes between 2021 and 2023, which helped protect its margins but also led some cost-sensitive customers to trade down or brew at home. Dutch Bros, too, has raised prices as needed; its drinks tend to be comparably priced to Starbucks’ (in the $4–6 range for most items), though Dutch Bros often sells larger sizes and very customizable concoctions which can drive tickets up. The delicate game for these companies is managing margin pressures without pushing prices so high that they dampen demand. There’s evidence that coffee shops have some pricing power – their product can be an affordable luxury and a habit that people are loath to give up. But with economic uncertainty and competition, neither Starbucks nor Dutch Bros can rely solely on price increases for growth. Instead, they look to innovation and efficiency. Starbucks has broadened its menu into more food (breakfast sandwiches, protein boxes) to boost average tickets and capture food spend – in FY2023 Starbucks did $6 billion in food sales globally, and half of that was breakfast items. Dutch Bros, conversely, sticks almost entirely to beverages (coffee, flavored energy drinks, teas, etc.) and light snacks, but it continuously rolls out new drink recipes and limited-time flavors to entice repeat visits. In essence, product innovation and limited-time offerings are key tactics: whether it’s Starbucks introducing an Oleato line of olive oil-infused coffee or Dutch Bros debuting a seasonal pumpkin chai, novelty can drive traffic and pricing resilience.

On the cost side, labor remains the big issue. As noted, labor typically runs over 30% of revenue for coffee shops. With minimum wages rising in many states and a generally tight labor market in foodservice, both Starbucks and Dutch Bros face higher payroll expenses. Starbucks has proactively raised its average pay (at least $15/hour in the U.S. and higher in many markets) and added benefits to retain workers – yet it still faces the union challenge demanding more. Dutch Bros, with its smaller staff teams and focus on culture, must ensure it can attract enough employees as it expands into new states. A unique challenge for Dutch Bros is replicating its West Coast culture as it opens stores in places like the South or Midwest; maintaining that high-energy service means recruiting and training people who embody the brand’s spirit. That “human factor” is actually a competitive angle: Dutch Bros often mentions that its service can be a differentiator – the genuine conversation and connections at the window. Starbucks, while known for generally good service, has in some ways de-emphasized human interaction (for efficiency) through mobile ordering and drive-thru speaker systems. It’s possible we’ll see a pendulum swing, where Dutch Bros’ personable approach gains traction with customers who feel something lacking in more automated service experiences. On the flip side, Starbucks’ tech-forward approach appeals to those who prioritize speed and convenience above all – they might prefer minimal chit-chat and a quicker transaction.

Looking ahead 5–10 years, the landscape will likely see Starbucks maintaining its leadership but with continued challenges, and Dutch Bros maturing into a national player carving out a solid niche. Starbucks’ strengths – its massive scale, brand recognition, and financial resources – position it to weather economic cycles and invest in future growth (for example, Starbucks is doubling down on international markets like China, where it plans thousands more stores). But Starbucks will need to continually reinvent aspects of itself to stay relevant to younger consumers who have many more choices now (rival chains, indie cafés, at-home premium coffee machines, etc.). The company’s recent “Reinvention” plan under new CEO Laxman Narasimhan is a sign that it is not resting; they’re reexamining everything from store design to drive-thru throughput to the loyalty program (which saw a controversial update to its rewards redemption system in 2023). Dutch Bros, in 10 years, could become what Dunkin’ Donuts was to Starbucks on the East Coast – a ubiquitous drive-thru alternative with a devoted following. Dutch Bros’ goal of 7,000 stores hints at wanting to be a major national competitor. If it executes well, Dutch Bros will be present in most states, and many consumers will have the choice of a Dutch Bros or a Starbucks for their daily drink. At that point, Dutch Bros would no longer be a niche regional player but a co-national brand, and it may face its own saturation and brand identity challenges. Can it keep the quirky, community-centric charm when it’s a chain of thousands? That remains to be seen. Its unit economics suggest it has a winning formula for now, but scaling always tests the intangibles of a brand.

From an industry structure perspective, the coffee shop market is fragmented beyond the big names. While Starbucks sets the trends (as noted in industry reports: “Starbucks, given its considerable market power, determines industry trends”), there is ample room for mid-size and small competitors. In fact, many of the growth stories recently are regionally focused drive-thru coffee chains following Dutch Bros’ lead – for example, Scooter’s Coffee in the Midwest or Black Rock Coffee in the West. This implies the drive-thru coffee niche is expanding within the broader market, which could slightly eat into Starbucks’ territory especially in suburban America. Starbucks itself may eventually consider more franchising or licensing of its brand in the U.S. (something it historically avoided, preferring corporate ownership, though it licenses many stores inside grocery stores and targets). Dutch Bros, interestingly, started with franchising (many early shops were franchised to close partners) but now predominantly opens company-operated shops to maintain control over quality and culture. Industry trends show some major fast-food operators have franchised more to accelerate growth with less capital, but Dutch Bros seems committed to corporate growth for the time being – a strategy that requires more capital but can yield greater long-run profits and brand consistency if done right.

In terms of consumer trends, one cannot ignore the push towards sustainability and health that could shape the future. Starbucks has made public commitments to environmental goals (e.g. phasing out disposable cups in favor of reusables to cut waste by 2030), and such moves might become necessary for all players as younger consumers expect eco-conscious practices. Dutch Bros will also have to navigate these expectations (for instance, its drive-thru model means lots of single-use plastic cups for cold drinks – a potential area of scrutiny as it scales). On the health front, both companies have broadened their menus to include non-dairy milks, lower-sugar options, etc., responding to trends. (Starbucks even dropped the extra charge for plant-based milks in 2024 to encourage more sustainable choices, which shows how industry norms can shift.)

Ultimately, the Starbucks vs. Dutch Bros comparison is a tale of an incumbent and a disruptor coexisting in a large market. Starbucks represents the evolution of the coffeehouse tradition into a worldwide business, mastering consistency and convenience at scale. Dutch Bros represents a newer wave of coffee retail – one that strips the experience down to its essence (a drink in your hand, fast) and injects it with a dose of local flair and personality. Each has carved out a strong position: Starbucks as the all-encompassing café brand for everyone, Dutch Bros as the drive-thru rebel with an almost fanatical regional fanbase. As Dutch Bros expands, it is inevitably being measured against Starbucks’ metrics, and as we’ve seen, it holds up surprisingly well on several counts (unit volumes, loyalty engagement, real estate efficiency) while still lagging on others (overall scale, global reach, profit margins).

The next few years will be telling. If Dutch Bros can continue its growth spurt without diluting what makes it special, it could force Starbucks to respond in kind – perhaps with more drive-thru-centric strategies or by emphasizing the experiential aspects Starbucks can uniquely offer. Consumers, for their part, are winners in this scenario: they get more choices, more innovation, and the thrill of a genuine corporate rivalry brewing in their cups. Whether you’re team Starbucks or team Dutch Bros (or happily sip from both), the competition between these two companies is likely to keep shaping how and where Americans get their coffee fix. And if one thing is certain, it’s that America’s appetite for coffee isn’t going anywhere – it’s a large, simmering pot big enough for different flavors of success. Both Starbucks and Dutch Bros will be busy refilling that pot, one cup at a time, in their own distinct ways.

January 20, 2026, by a collective of authors at MMCG Invest, LLC, a small business administration loan-compliant SBA 7(a) and SBA 504 feasibility study company

Sources:

Starbucks Corporation. (2024). Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 29, 2024. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, EDGAR.

Starbucks Corporation. (2025). Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2025. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, EDGAR.

Starbucks Corporation. (2025). Quarterly earnings release and investor presentation (FY2025 Q1). Starbucks Investor Relations.

Starbucks Corporation. (2025). Quarterly earnings release and investor presentation (FY2025 Q2). Starbucks Investor Relations.

Dutch Bros Inc. (2024). Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, EDGAR.

Dutch Bros Inc. (2025). Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, EDGAR.

Dutch Bros Inc. (2025). Quarterly earnings release and investor presentation (FY2025 Q1). Dutch Bros Investor Relations.

Dutch Bros Inc. (2025). Quarterly earnings release and investor presentation (FY2025 Q2). Dutch Bros Investor Relations.

Category demand, consumption behavior, and macro context (credible narrative support)

National Coffee Association USA. (2024). National Coffee Data Trends (NCDT) - Specialty Coffee Report. National Coffee Association USA.

National Coffee Association USA. (2025). National Coffee Data Trends (NCDT) - Specialty Coffee Report. National Coffee Association USA.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2025). Consumer Price Index - Average price data for coffee and related beverages (time series). U.S. Department of Labor.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2025). Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) - Baristas (SOC 35-3023). U.S. Department of Labor.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). County Business Patterns - NAICS 722515 (Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars). U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2022). FDA Food Code (Model Food Code). U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

National Restaurant Association. (2024). State of the Restaurant Industry Report 2024. National Restaurant Association.

National Restaurant Association. (2025). State of the Restaurant Industry Report 2025. National Restaurant Association.

Union Metric Feasibility - Coffee shop and SBA feasibility study analytics

Location analytics and foot traffic (market penetration, trade areas, cross-shopping)

Placer Labs, Inc. (2025). Placer.ai foot traffic analytics - Coffee and specialty beverage category dashboards (methodology and brand visit trends). Placer Labs, Inc.

SafeGraph Inc. (2024). Places data and Patterns data (POI and mobility datasets) - methodology documentation. SafeGraph Inc.

OpenStreetMap contributors. (2025). OpenStreetMap dataset (planet extract) - place and POI geographies. OpenStreetMap Foundation. Accessed January 2026.

Brand preference, sentiment, awareness, and customer satisfaction

YouGov plc. (2025). YouGov BrandIndex - Starbucks (US) - brand metrics time series and demographics. YouGov.

YouGov plc. (2025). YouGov BrandIndex - Dutch Bros (US) - brand metrics time series and demographics. YouGov.

Morning Consult. (2024). Most Loved Brands report (US) - restaurant and beverage brand rankings. Morning Consult.

Morning Consult. (2025). Most Trusted Brands report (US) - restaurant and beverage brand rankings. Morning Consult.

American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). (2024). Restaurant Study 2024. ACSI LLC.

American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). (2025). Restaurant Study 2025. ACSI LLC.