ADT vs CTAS Stock Comparison
Compare ADT and CTAS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ADT and CTAS?
CTAS leads the current stock comparison as Cintas Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ADT Inc. vs Cintas Corporation
CTAS leads
CTAS leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CTAS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ADT Inc.
Cintas Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CTAS over ADT, 54 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. CTAS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while ADT holds the stronger value profile. CTAS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CTAS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. CTAS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ADT Inc. and Cintas Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare ADT and CTAS against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality40 vs 85CTAS +45
- Value73 vs 29ADT +44
- Risk Resilience55 vs 71CTAS +16
- Momentum26 vs 35CTAS +9
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CTAS. CTAS’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; ADT keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -18
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
CTAS's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ADT and CTAS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CTAS (Cintas Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
ADT (ADT Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 26.3% against 15.7%.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
CTASCTAS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CTASCTAS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ADTADT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 44 points.
Momentum
CTASCTAS on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
CTASCTAS on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
CTASCTAS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | ADT | CTAS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.1% | +14.4% | CTAS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +3.3% | +15.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CTAS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CTAS | 49 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | ADTon balance | revenue growth 2.6% vs 2.2%; TTM ROE 16.8% vs 41.8%; gross margin 51.4% vs 50.7%; operating margin 25% vs 23.1% — ADT takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ADT | Value 73 vs 29 |
| Technicals | CTAS | Price vs 50-day -2.5% vs 1.2%; vs 200-day -4.2% vs 6.1% |
| Risk Resilience | CTAS | Risk Resilience 55 vs 71 |
| Analyst expectations | CTAS | Target upside 8.1% vs 14.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ADT and CTAS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on CTAS.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CTAS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CTAS +5
- 49 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- ADT +2
- 62 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- CTAS +1
- 56 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- CTAS +3
- 57 vs 60
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when CTAS moved ahead of ADT.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.18%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.39%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
CTAS leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.57%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.54%, AIQ -4 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1ADT closes the Quality gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTAS's edge.
- 2ADT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CTAS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
ADT leads on balance| Metric | ADT | CTAS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.6% | 2.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -4.8% | 0.8% |
| Gross margin | 51.4% | 50.7% |
| Operating margin | 25% | 23.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.8% | 41.8% |
| Debt to equity | 2.21 | 0.53 |
Performance
CTAS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ADT | CTAS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | 0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.1% | -2.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.6% | 10% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.9% | 0.1% |
| Year to date | -13.1% | 5.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -18.7% | -2.2% |
Technicals
CTAS has the stronger structure| Metric | ADT | CTAS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.6 | 37.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19.7 | 16.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.5% | 1.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.2% | 6.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.3% | 15.7% |
Risk
CTAS is the more resilient| Metric | ADT | CTAS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.8 | 0.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.72 | -0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.83 | -0.21 |
| Max drawdown | -28.8% | -20.3% |
| Current drawdown | -20.8% | -8.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.2% | 23.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ADT or CTAS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CTAS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 against ADT's 49. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. ADT is not without a case — it holds the better value profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is ADT or CTAS the better buy right now?
CTAS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CTAS over ADT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CTAS leads Quality by 45 points; ADT leads Value by 44 points; CTAS leads Risk Resilience by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ADT or CTAS?
Analyst price targets imply +8.1% upside for ADT and +14.4% for CTAS, so the Street currently favors CTAS. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, ADT or CTAS?
ADT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ADT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 44 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, ADT or CTAS?
CTAS on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, ADT or CTAS?
CTAS on the Momentum factor, by 9 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, ADT or CTAS?
CTAS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CTAS on Risk Resilience, by 16 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ADT more profitable than CTAS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 51.4% vs 50.7%; operating margin 25% vs 23.1%; ttm roe 16.8% vs 41.8%. ADT leads on two measures and CTAS on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is CTAS's lead over ADT getting stronger or weaker?
CTAS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-08, when CTAS moved ahead of ADT.
What would change the ADT vs CTAS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ADT closes the Quality gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTAS's edge; ADT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CTAS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about ADT and CTAS?
ADT: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted. CTAS: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on ADT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CTAS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ADT and CTAS with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.