Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$197.64
▼ $1.82 (-0.9%)
Market data updated: 09/19 12:01 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$79.09B
Day Range
$195.10 - $198.89
52-Week Range
$161.16 - $219.17
Beta
—
Next Earnings
23.09.2026
Support
$177.55
Resistance
$219.17
CTAS is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-0.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 14/31 factors positiveRisk: Medium
This score and all analysis on this page are for informational and educational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Read the full disclaimer
Weighted: Technical 25% · Fundamental 20% · Growth 15% · Valuation 15% · News 10% · Quality 10% · Risk 5%
Overall Score
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $78.36 vs. price $197.64 (-60.4%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (64/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (33/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
81/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+4.7%
Median 40D Outcome
75/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
73%
+4.6% … +7.9%
🟡 Base
13%
+0.7% … +0.8%
🔴 Bearish
13%
-7.1% … -5.8%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 73% (95% CI 48%–89%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +5.8%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
2 occurrence(s) · 50% historical success
Echo #2 — Oversold Reversal
1 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 60% (36%–80%) | +2.2% | -0.3% … +5.4% | +0.5% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +1.9% | -0.2% … +4.4% | +1.0% |
| 20D | 73% (48%–89%) | +5.8% | +1.1% … +6.8% | +2.2% |
| 40D | 67% (42%–85%) | +4.7% | -1.0% … +9.0% | +4.8% |
| 60D | 80% (55%–93%) | +9.5% | +4.9% … +12.6% | +7.0% |
Sample size: 15 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-03-02 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +7.4% | +7.7% |
| 2025-03-04 | 81/100 | Uptrend | +1.6% | +9.9% |
| 2023-08-18 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +6.0% | +10.5% |
| 2019-12-09 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +8.5% | +7.3% |
| 2023-03-23 | 79/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +6.2% | +11.8% |
| 2025-07-07 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +3.5% | -5.6% |
| 2023-10-05 | 78/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +6.1% | +22.8% |
| 2025-06-18 | 77/100 | Uptrend | +0.7% | -9.4% |
| 2024-11-01 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +8.3% | -2.5% |
| 2021-10-04 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +11.6% | +15.2% |
| 2023-01-18 | 76/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.5% | +4.7% |
| 2022-08-29 | 76/100 | Uptrend | -7.8% | +9.5% |
| 2025-02-18 | 76/100 | Uptrend | -5.1% | +5.1% |
| 2024-04-30 | 75/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +0.8% | +15.7% |
| 2025-03-24 | 74/100 | Downtrend | +5.8% | +13.3% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLI (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
TIME ECHO identifies historical situations that resemble the current market state. Historical outcomes are not guarantees of future performance. Similarity does not imply causation, and results may change as new data becomes available.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
🌱 Building History
We don't have a real data point from a week ago for this stock yet. The weekly comparison will appear once enough history has accumulated.
📊 Score History
60
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
This isn't a price-direction forecast — just a synthesis of real, already-computed data, and future conditions that could change the picture.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 26, 2026
Then
69
$204.76
Now
60
$197.64
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
64
Quality
63
Value
33
Momentum
39
Risk
64
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
79
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING CTAS...
Recent media coverage of Cintas has primarily focused on its stock performance and financial fundamentals. Analysts note the company’s strong organic growth, record margins, and effective route-based business model, though some suggest its stock may be fully valued. While Cintas has underperformed the Nasdaq over the past year, its Q4 FY2026 results are highlighted as robust, reinforcing its operational strengths despite broader market comparisons.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Cintas. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
30
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
79
Technical
39
Valuation
33
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+16%
Market Narrative
75
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+33
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior reflects traders’ focus on CTAS’s proximity to support, ignoring valuation extremes (+156% above DCF). Overconfidence and euphoria coexist but are muted by weak momentum, while FOMO remains dormant. The narrative gap (33) hints at a disconnect between rosy expectations and fundamentals. Key uncertainty: whether traders will break from anchoring or adjust valuations to reality.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 10:37 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Cintas has underperformed the Nasdaq over the past year"
"Cintas (CTAS) Q4 FY2026 shows strong organic growth, record margins"
"its route model wins—and why valuation looks rich"
📈 15D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: High (confidence in the behavioral read, not a price prediction). Describes observable market behavior, not what any individual investor thinks, and is not a buy/sell signal.
🏛️ Investor DNA — Historical Investors
A Historical Strategy Simulation: assuming each investor follows their documented principles, how would they rate this stock today? This is not a prediction of what they would actually do.
🟢 Best match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 86/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 16/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for CTAS reflects deep methodological differences in how these investors evaluate stocks. The highest-scoring methodologies—Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s cycle-based approach, Edgar Lawrence Smith’s long-term buy-and-hold framework, and Thorstein Veblen’s value-creation alignment—all suggest the stock is undervalued or positioned favorably within its market cycle, implying potential for sustained growth or a contrarian edge. Conversely, the lowest-scoring frameworks, particularly Benjamin Graham’s defensive investing and Peter Lynch’s growth-at-a-reasonable-price criteria, flag structural concerns: either the stock lacks sufficient margin of safety or doesn’t meet Lynch’s growth thresholds. Meanwhile, methodologies like Jesse Livermore’s trend-following and Howard Marks’ mixed-value assessment lean cautious, questioning whether the stock’s momentum or valuation justifies a bet. The middle ground—where Fisher, Bagehot, or Malkiel’s efficient-market view sit—acknowledges competence but lacks the conviction to strongly recommend it, highlighting how subjective quality standards or market efficiency debates can override technical signals.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 86
Cycle position looks favorable — closer to oversold than overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 75
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 74
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 68
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 64
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 58
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 51
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 49
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 46
Mixed case — the evidence for picking this stock over an index is not strong
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 42
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 40
Negative trend — against Livermore's core rule of trading with the trend
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 35
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 30
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 20
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 16
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 6 bearish · 3 neutral)
A market-structure read based purely on real price and volume data — not full classic Wyckoff schematic identification (Phase A-E), but a quantitative analysis of what can reliably be computed: trading ranges, "effort vs. result", volume within the range, and Spring/Upthrust detection.
A pattern consistent with an early/mid distribution phase — a trading range after an advance with declining volume.
Medium confidence
$177.55
Range Bottom
$219.17
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
The Wyckoff Method, developed by Richard Wyckoff in the early 20th century, reads the balance of supply and demand through price and volume, based on the premise that large investors ("smart money") quietly accumulate shares before rallies and quietly distribute them before declines. The read here is based solely on real price and volume data — full, precise identification of classic Wyckoff patterns (such as Phases A-E) requires human chart-reading experience and judgment, so this is an approximate algorithmic read, not a substitute for professional analysis. This should not be considered investment advice.
Gross Margin
50.7%
Operating Margin
23.1%
Net Margin
17.8%
EBITDA Margin
27.7%
ROE
38.9%
ROA
19.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
$4.97
Cash
$289.02M
Total Debt
$2.43B
Current Ratio
1.43
Debt/Equity
0.47
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 14.8.2026 | $0.520 |
| 15.5.2026 | $0.450 |
| 14.5.2026 | $0.450 |
| 13.2.2026 | $0.450 |
| 12.2.2026 | $0.450 |
| 14.11.2025 | $0.450 |
| 13.11.2025 | $0.450 |
| 15.8.2025 | $0.450 |
| 14.8.2025 | $0.450 |
| 15.5.2025 | $0.390 |
| 14.5.2025 | $0.390 |
| 14.2.2025 | $0.390 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$197.64
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$78.36
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-60.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
8.5%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8.5% | $2.04B | $1.87B |
| 2 | 7.0% | $2.18B | $1.84B |
| 3 | 5.5% | $2.30B | $1.78B |
| 4 | 4.0% | $2.40B | $1.70B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.46B | $1.60B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.88B
Terminal Value
$38.75B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$25.18B
Enterprise Value
$33.97B
Net Debt
$2.14B
Equity Value
$31.83B
*The DCF model is an estimate based on assumptions — not a guaranteed forecast. You can change the assumptions to examine different scenarios.
Book Value per Share
$12.65
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2.19
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 8 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Cintas (CTAS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 60/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
CTAS currently scores 60/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure. StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, CTAS's estimated fair value is $78.36, which is 60.4% below the current price of $197.64. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CTAS's technical score is 39/100, which currently reads as bearish — based on real price/volume signals (moving averages, RSI, MACD, and more), not a prediction of what happens next.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; ATR: 1.9% of price; Return on equity (ROE): 38.9% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $78.36 vs. price $197.64 (-60.4%); Price is below the 50-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — CTAS has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rozakis Jim | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 35,995 | +35,995 | — |
| Rozakis Jim | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 5,988 | +5,988 | — |
| Rozakis Jim | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.8.2026 | 3,643 | -3,643 | $202.71 |
| Denton David Brock | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 17,999 | +17,999 | — |
| Denton David Brock | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 4,435 | +4,435 | — |
| Rozakis Jim | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 10,695 | +10,695 | $202.71 |
| Rozakis Jim | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 555 | +555 | $202.71 |
| FARMER SCOTT D | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.8.2026 | 15,923 | -15,923 | $202.71 |
| FARMER SCOTT D | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 830 | +830 | $202.71 |
| Denton David Brock | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 370 | +370 | $202.71 |
| Garula Scott | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.8.2026 | 2,958 | -2,958 | $202.71 |
| Garula Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 10,695 | +10,695 | $202.71 |
| Denton David Brock | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 5,348 | +5,348 | $202.71 |
| Denton David Brock | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.8.2026 | 3,479 | -3,479 | $202.71 |
| Schneider Todd M. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.8.2026 | 35,599 | -35,599 | $202.71 |
| Schneider Todd M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 57,944 | +57,944 | $202.71 |
| FARMER SCOTT D | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 103,822 | +830 | $202.71 |
| FARMER SCOTT D | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.8.2026 | 87,899 | -15,923 | $202.71 |
| Schneider Todd M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 727,006 | +57,944 | $202.71 |
| Schneider Todd M. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.8.2026 | 691,407 | -35,599 | $202.71 |
| Denton David Brock | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 31,205 | +5,348 | $202.71 |
| Denton David Brock | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 31,575 | +370 | $202.71 |
| Denton David Brock | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.8.2026 | 28,096 | -3,479 | $202.71 |
| Denton David Brock | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 17,999 | +17,999 | — |
| Denton David Brock | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 4,435 | +4,435 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
11,653,848 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 11,365,170 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
66.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 63.6% the prior week
Based on daily short-sale volume (Reg SHO) — a different metric from the open short interest above: this is daily trading volume, not an open position, so it updates weekly rather than biweekly.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology