CTAS vs QQQ Stock Comparison
CTAS currently leads QQQ in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 63 vs 57. The clearest difference is momentum, while QQQ has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CTAS and QQQ?
CTAS leads the current stock comparison as Cintas Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cintas Corporation vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
CTAS leads
CTAS leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support CTAS, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Cintas Corporation
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CTAS over QQQ, 63 versus 57 as of Oct 31, 2026. CTAS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while QQQ holds the stronger value profile. CTAS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CTAS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. CTAS lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CTAS now leads by 6.
Compare Cintas Corporation and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 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 QQQ 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.
- Momentum76 vs 46CTAS +30
- Value29 vs 35QQQ +6
- Risk Resilience65 vs 69QQQ +4
- Quality85 vs 82Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor CTAS. CTAS’s edge is concentrated in momentum; QQQ 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 +22
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
CTAS's lead narrowed by 7 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CTAS and QQQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CTAS (Cintas Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, valuation.
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
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
QQQQQQ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
CTASCTAS on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | CTAS | QQQ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5.2% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +15.6% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 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 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | QQQ | Value 29 vs 35 |
| Technicals | CTAS | Price vs 50-day 7.8% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day 12% vs 6.9% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 65 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CTAS and QQQ 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 moderate at 6 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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: Reversed — QQQ led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CTAS now leads by 6.
- Today
- CTAS +6
- 63 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- CTAS +16
- 66 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +11
- 56 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- CTAS +6
- 61 vs 55
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when CTAS moved ahead of QQQ.
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
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Uptrend Structure Active.
QQQ 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 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3.47%, AIQ +5 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.
- 1QQQ closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTAS's edge.
- 2QQQ's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum 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 | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.2% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0.8% | — |
| Gross margin | 50.7% | — |
| Operating margin | 23.1% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 41.8% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.53 | — |
Performance
QQQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CTAS | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.3% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.1% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | 6.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22.3% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | 13.2% | 18.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.5% | 17.6% |
Technicals
CTAS has the stronger structure| Metric | CTAS | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.4 | 39.4 |
| ADX (14) | 30.5 | 25.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.8% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12% | 6.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.4% | 19.5% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | CTAS | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.1 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 0.59 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.65 | 0.9 |
| Max drawdown | -20% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -5.8% | -4.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.8% | 20% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CTAS or QQQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CTAS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 63 against QQQ's 57. The edge comes from momentum. QQQ 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 QQQ the better buy right now?
CTAS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CTAS over QQQ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CTAS leads Momentum by 30 points; QQQ leads Value by 6 points; QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CTAS or QQQ?
Analyst price targets imply +5.2% upside for CTAS and not covered for QQQ. 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, CTAS or QQQ?
QQQ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. QQQ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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 QQQ?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 QQQ?
CTAS on the Momentum factor, by 30 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 QQQ?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ 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 QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is CTAS's lead over QQQ getting stronger or weaker?
CTAS lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CTAS now leads by 6. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-12, when CTAS moved ahead of QQQ.
What would change the CTAS vs QQQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: QQQ closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTAS's edge; QQQ's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum 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 QQQ?
CTAS: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. QQQ: 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 QQQ it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.