CTAS vs JPM Stock Comparison
CTAS currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 63 vs 53. The clearest difference is quality, while JPM has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CTAS and JPM?
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
Cintas Corporation vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
CTAS leads
CTAS leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors JPM on target upside.
Competitive: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CTAS, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Cintas Corporation
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CTAS over JPM, 63 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. CTAS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while JPM holds the stronger value profile. CTAS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JPM. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CTAS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CTAS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cintas Corporation and JPMorgan Chase & Co. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare CTAS and JPM 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.
- Quality85 vs 46CTAS +39
- Value29 vs 44JPM +15
- Momentum76 vs 61CTAS +15
- Risk Resilience65 vs 69JPM +4
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CTAS. CTAS’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; JPM keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
CTAS's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CTAS and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CTAS (Cintas Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, valuation.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
JPMJPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
CTASCTAS on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
JPMJPM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CTAS, analyst targets favor JPM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CTAS | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5.2% | +10.7% | JPM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +15.6% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CTAS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 13.87% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.878 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.680 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 4 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #120 |
CTAS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 13.87% a year against JPM's 9.04%. JPM never reduced its regular dividend in the window; CTAS did in 1 year.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 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 | 63 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 2.2% vs -7.6%; TTM ROE 41.8% vs 17.9%; gross margin 50.7% vs 63.2%; operating margin 23.1% vs 28.2% |
| Valuation | JPM | Value 29 vs 44 |
| Technicals | CTAS | Price vs 50-day 7.8% vs -2%; vs 200-day 12% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 65 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | JPM | Target upside 5.2% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CTAS and JPM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 10 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28CTAS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CTAS +10
- 63 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- CTAS +16
- 66 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- CTAS +12
- 56 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- CTAS +9
- 61 vs 52
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when CTAS moved ahead of JPM.
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish
Only CTAS
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JPM
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
JPM is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.8%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.9%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTAS's edge.
- 2JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CTAS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
Split| Metric | CTAS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.2% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0.8% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 50.7% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 23.1% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 41.8% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.53 | 3.32 |
Performance
CTAS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CTAS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.3% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.1% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22.3% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | 13.2% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.5% | 12.9% |
Technicals
CTAS has the stronger structure| Metric | CTAS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.4 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 30.5 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.8% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.4% | 13% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | CTAS | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.1 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.65 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -20% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -5.8% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.8% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CTAS or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CTAS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 63 against JPM's 53. The edge comes from quality and momentum. JPM 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 CTAS or JPM the better buy right now?
CTAS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CTAS over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CTAS leads Quality by 39 points; JPM leads Value by 15 points; CTAS leads Momentum by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CTAS or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +5.2% upside for CTAS and +10.7% for JPM, so the Street currently favors JPM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CTAS. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CTAS or JPM?
JPM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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, CTAS or JPM?
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, CTAS or JPM?
CTAS on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, CTAS or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 CTAS more profitable than JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 50.7% vs 63.2%; operating margin 23.1% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 41.8% vs 17.9%. CTAS leads on one measure and JPM on two measures, 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 JPM getting stronger or weaker?
CTAS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-19, when CTAS moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the CTAS vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTAS's edge; JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CTAS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 CTAS and JPM?
CTAS: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. JPM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 CTAS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CTAS and JPM 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.