CTAS vs SPY Stock Comparison
SPY currently leads CTAS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 63. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while CTAS has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between CTAS and SPY?
SPY leads the current stock comparison as State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cintas Corporation vs State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
SPY leads
SPY leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support SPY, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cintas Corporation
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPY over CTAS, 65 versus 63 as of Oct 31, 2026. SPY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while CTAS holds the stronger momentum profile. SPY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. SPY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cintas Corporation and State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF 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 SPY 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.
- Risk Resilience65 vs 87SPY +22
- Momentum76 vs 59CTAS +17
- Value29 vs 41SPY +12
- Quality85 vs 84Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor SPY. SPY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; CTAS keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
The lead changed hands: SPY moved ahead of CTAS in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CTAS and SPY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SPY (State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
CTAS (Cintas Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 25.4% against 10%.
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
SPYSPY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
SPYSPY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
CTASCTAS on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
SPYSPY on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 | SPY | 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 SPY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 63 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SPY | Value 29 vs 41 |
| Technicals | CTAS | Price vs 50-day 7.8% vs -1.6%; vs 200-day 12% vs 6.1% |
| Risk Resilience | SPY | Risk Resilience 65 vs 87 |
| 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 SPY 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 SPY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28SPY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPY +2
- 63 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- CTAS +7
- 66 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- SPY +14
- 56 vs 70
- 90 sessions ago
- SPY +1
- 61 vs 62
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 28 when SPY moved ahead of CTAS.
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
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SPY
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.90%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.1%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Uptrend Structure Active.
SPY 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.
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 -1.77%, 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.
- 1CTAS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPY's edge.
- 2CTAS's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3SPY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate SPY's advantage entirely.
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 | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| 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
SPY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CTAS | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.3% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.1% | 1.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | 4.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22.3% | 8.5% |
| Year to date | 13.2% | 13.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.5% | 14% |
Technicals
CTAS has the stronger structure| Metric | CTAS | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.4 | 48.6 |
| ADX (14) | 30.5 | 14 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.8% | -1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12% | 6.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.4% | 10% |
Risk
SPY is the more resilient| Metric | CTAS | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.1 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 0.68 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.65 | 1.04 |
| Max drawdown | -20% | -9.1% |
| Current drawdown | -5.8% | -0.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.8% | 12.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CTAS or SPY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SPY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 65 against CTAS's 63. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. CTAS is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 SPY the better buy right now?
SPY 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SPY over CTAS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SPY leads Risk Resilience by 22 points; CTAS leads Momentum by 17 points; SPY leads Value by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CTAS or SPY?
Analyst price targets imply +5.2% upside for CTAS and not covered for SPY. 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 SPY?
SPY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SPY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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 SPY?
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 SPY?
CTAS on the Momentum factor, by 17 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 SPY?
SPY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SPY on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 SPY?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is SPY's lead over CTAS getting stronger or weaker?
SPY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 2 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 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-28, when SPY moved ahead of CTAS.
What would change the CTAS vs SPY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CTAS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPY's edge; CTAS's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; SPY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate SPY's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CTAS and SPY?
CTAS: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. SPY: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 CTAS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SPY 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.