Skip to main content
Homepage
Full 18-step deep-dive · ~20–30 min · a member feature.
AGING Analysis Report
Aug 14, 2026
9 days ago · 100% complete
NOT DEPENDABLE This report predates a filing — its financial basis has been replaced.
Report generated: Aug 14, 2026 · Filing on record since: Jul 28, 2025
For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page

What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Cintas Corporation (CTAS) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.

Our current read (analysis of 2026-08-23): Designation Watch · Gem Score +0 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 86 · Value -70 · Sentiment 24 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $86.66 vs $200.70 at analysis

Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable reference-name attribute you can cite):

  • profile-header / price-overview — company profile, live quote, market cap
  • extended-analysisthe core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memo
  • future-predictions — our forward price-band predictions
  • market-narrative / ai-findings / gpt-critique — narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)
  • Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers): price-history, income-trend, key-metrics, financials (statement tables), insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.

More for machine readers: site briefing at /llms.txt · any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER · raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds); every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.

Cintas Corporation

CTAS NASDAQ
Industrials · Specialty Business Services
Cincinnati, OH 45262-5737, United States cintas.com Updated Aug 13, 9:31am
Price
$204.50
Market Cap
$81.4B
Employees
48,300
Beta
0.92
Avg Volume
2,367,765
Last Dividend
$1.87
CEO
Mr. Todd M. Schneider

Cintas Corporation is a business services company that provides uniforms, workwear, and workplace support solutions for organizations across many industries. Its core offerings include uniform rental and sales, facility services such as mats, mops, restroom supplies, and cleaning products, as well as first aid and safety services and fire protection products. Cintas serves customers ranging from small businesses to large enterprises, helping them maintain professional appearances, cleaner facilities, and safer work environments. The company’s services are organized around major segments that focus on uniform rental and facility support, first aid and safety, and related fire protection and direct-sale offerings. Cintas Corporation plays an important role in the business-to-business services market by supplying recurring, operationally essential products and services used in everyday workplace management.

Runs with full report Generated: Aug 14, 2026 12:20am
Price Overview
Price at report time
$200.70
as of Aug 14, 12:30am (9d ago)
Change · Aug 14
-2.81 (-1.38%)
Day Range
$200.58 – $205.39
52-Week Range
$161.16 – $225.85
50-Day MA
$188.50
200-Day MA
$185.50
Volume
1,310,075.00
Right now · live
Log in to get the live feed
Members see the real-time price and the move since this report (over 9d).
Share Structure
Outstanding 400,147,000.00
Float 330,399,998.00
Free Float 82.6%
High free float — 82.6% of shares trade freely, ~17.4% held by insiders/institutions
Very liquid — most shares trade freely. Low insider ownership can mean less management alignment, but makes large position sizing straightforward.
Price History (1 Year)
Last updated: Aug 14, 2026 12:30am (9d ago)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
The directional story — useful even when net income is negative.
Last updated: Aug 12, 2026 9:47pm (10d ago)
Revenue
The top line — total sales before any costs or taxes are subtracted. A measure of how much business the company is doing.
Net Income
The bottom line — profit left after subtracting all expenses, interest, and taxes from revenue. Reflects accounting profitability, but includes non-cash items like depreciation, so it isn't the same as cash earned.
Operating Cash Flow
The real cash generated by the day-to-day business — selling products, paying suppliers, collecting from customers. Calculated from net income by adding back non-cash items and adjusting for timing (unpaid bills, unsold inventory). When OCF consistently lags net income, the reported profit may not be converting to real money.
Period Revenue Net Income Net Margin YoY/QoQ
Key Metrics
TD Twelve Data statement HEX SEC filing
Industry comparison last run: Aug 14, 2026 12:18am
P/E Ratio (Price per dollar of earnings)
HEX
Stock Price / EPS (Diluted)
46.48
Stock Price: $204.50
EPS (Diluted): 4.40
P/B Ratio (Price vs net asset value)
HEX
Stock Price / Book Value Per Share
17.91
Stock Price: $204.50
Total Equity: $4.68B
Shares: 410,286,000
EV/EBITDA (Total value vs operating profit)
HEX
Enterprise Value / EBITDA
29.29
Market Cap: $81.44B
Total Debt: $2.42B
Cash: $263.97M
EBITDA: $2.85B
Enterprise Value (Takeover price (cap + debt - cash))
HEX
Market Cap + Total Debt - Cash
$83.6B
Market Cap: $81.44B
Total Debt: $2.42B
Cash: $263.97M
Gross Margin (Revenue left after direct costs)
HEX
Gross Profit / Revenue
50.0%
Gross Profit: $5.17B
Revenue: $10.34B
Operating Margin (Revenue left after all operations)
HEX
Operating Income / Revenue
22.8%
Operating Income: $2.36B
Revenue: $10.34B
Net Margin (Revenue left as actual profit)
HEX
Net Income / Revenue
17.5%
Net Income: $1.81B
Revenue: $10.34B
ROE (Profit from shareholder equity)
HEX
Net Income / Total Equity
38.7%
Net Income: $1.81B
Total Equity: $4.68B
ROIC (Profit from all invested capital)
HEX
NOPAT / Invested Capital
27.6%
Operating Income: $2.36B
Tax Rate: 20.0%
Equity: $4.68B
Total Debt: $2.42B
Cash: $263.97M
Current Ratio (Can it pay short-term bills)
HEX
Current Assets / Current Liabilities
2.09
Current Assets: $3.44B
Current Liabilities: $1.64B
Debt/Equity (Leverage — debt vs equity)
HEX
Total Debt / Total Equity
0.52
Short-Term Debt: $0.00
Long-Term Debt: $2.42B
Total Debt: $2.42B
Total Equity: $4.68B
Rev/Share (Top-line per share)
HEX
Revenue / Shares Outstanding
$25.20
Revenue: $10.34B
Shares: 410,286,000
Book Value/Share (Net assets per share)
HEX
(Total Assets - Total Liabilities) / Shares
$11.42
Total Equity: $4.68B
Shares: 410,286,000
FCF/Share (Real cash generated per share)
HEX
(Operating Cash Flow + CapEx) / Shares
$4.28
Operating CF: $2.17B
CapEx: -$408.88M
Shares: 410,286,000
CapEx is negative (outflow) — added to OCF to get FCF
Div Yield (Annual income from holding)
TD
Last Annual Dividend / Stock Price
0.9%
Last Dividend: $1.87
Stock Price: $204.50
Payout Ratio (Earnings paid out as dividends)
HEX
Dividends Paid / Net Income
33.7%
Dividends Paid: -$611.63M
Net Income: $1.81B
Industry Benchmarks
Last run: Aug 14, 2026 12:18am
Compares CTAS against LLM-researched typical ranges for its industry. One research call per industry, cached indefinitely — every stock in the same industry reuses the same baseline.
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 12, 2026 9:47pm (10d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue $7.1B $7.9B $8.8B $9.6B $10.3B
Cost of Revenue $3.8B $4.2B $4.6B $4.9B $5.2B
Gross Profit $3.3B $3.6B $4.2B $4.7B $5.2B
Operating Expenses $1.9B $2.0B $2.4B $2.6B $2.8B
Operating Income $1.4B $1.6B $1.8B $2.1B $2.4B
Net Income $1.1B $1.2B $1.3B $1.6B $1.8B
EBITDA $1.8B $2.0B $2.2B $2.5B $2.9B
EPS $10.52 $11.92 $13.21 $15.40 $4.48
EPS (Diluted) $10.24 $11.65 $12.99 $15.15 $4.40
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 13, 2026 9:31am (10d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Cash & Equivalents $493.6M $90.5M $124.1M $342.0M $264.0M
Total Current Assets $2.8B $2.6B $2.9B $3.2B $3.4B
Total Assets $8.2B $8.1B $8.5B $9.2B $9.8B
Current Liabilities $1.9B $1.4B $1.2B $1.8B $1.6B
Long-Term Debt $1.6B $2.5B $2.5B $2.0B $2.4B
Total Liabilities $4.5B $4.8B $4.7B $4.9B $5.1B
Total Equity $3.7B $3.3B $3.9B $4.3B $4.7B
Retained Earnings $7.9B $8.7B $9.6B $10.6B $11.8B
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 12, 2026 9:47pm (10d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Operating Cash Flow $1.4B $1.5B $1.6B $2.1B $2.2B
Capital Expenditure -$143.5M -$240.7M -$331.1M -$409.5M -$408.9M
Free Cash Flow $1.2B $1.3B $1.3B $1.7B $1.8B
Acquisitions (net) -$10.0M -$164.2M -$46.4M -$186.8M -$232.9M
Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) $0 -$9.5M -$50.0M -$13.5M -$51.9M
Dividends Paid -$451.3M -$375.1M -$449.9M -$530.9M -$611.6M
Stock Buybacks -$554.1M -$1.5B -$398.9M -$700.0M -$934.8M
Net Change in Cash $348.2M -$403.2M $33.7M $217.9M -$78.0M
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 12, 2026 9:47pm (10d ago)
Metric 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue Growth +10.4% +12.2% +8.9% +7.7%
Gross Profit Growth +9.6% +14.9% +12.3% +10.4%
Operating Income Growth +14.6% +13.6% +14.8% +14.1%
Net Income Growth +11.2% +9.1% +16.6% +15.3%
EBITDA Growth +12.0% +11.3% +13.5% +13.7%
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Aug 13, 2026 9:32am (10d ago)
Date Dividend Declaration Record Payment
2026-08-14 $0.52
2026-05-15 $0.45
2026-02-13 $0.45
2025-11-14 $0.45
2025-08-15 $0.45
2025-05-15 $0.39
2025-02-14 $0.39
2024-11-15 $0.39
2024-08-15 $0.39
2024-05-14 $0.34
2024-02-14 $0.34
2023-11-14 $0.34
2023-08-14 $0.34
2023-05-12 $0.29
2023-02-14 $0.29
2022-11-14 $0.29
2022-08-12 $0.29
2022-05-13 $0.24
2022-02-14 $0.24
2021-11-12 $0.24
0Company Classification 1Industry Landscape 2Company Momentum 3Forward Projection 4aDCF Valuation 4bEarnings Power Value 4cAnchored PE 4dReverse DCF 4eRevenue-Based DCF 4fAnchored P/S 4gScenario Analysis 4hDividend Discount Model 4iBook Value Analysis 4jInsider Activity 4fCash Flow Quality 4gDebt Maturity Risk 4hMacro Environment 4iSector Intelligence 4jRevenue Confidence 4kSensitivity Analysis 4lSector Demand Cycle 5AI Investigation 5bThesis Evaluation 6Valuation Synthesis
computed not applicable 18 computed · 6 not applicable
Risk : Reward — if the last quarter repeats
Live · as of 2026-08-23 02:41
-0.9 : 1 recovery upside vs repeat-quarter downside
Even the bull case prices 61% below today — the ratio here measures the model-vs-market gap, not payoff odds. Another quarter like the worst recent one costs 71%.
CaseGrowthMarginFair valuevs price ($200.70)
Bull — recovery +13% 20.2% $77.28 -61%
Base — stabilizes +9% 17.6% $59.55 -70%
Bear — keeps slipping +4% 14.9% $45.01 -78%
Stress — last quarter repeats +8% 17.8% $58.74 -71%
The next quarters keep the trajectory of the worst recent matched quarter (ending 2025-05-31) — growth stays at 8.0% and margins bend by the same profit-vs-revenue ratio (×1.01). Stress is a trajectory, not a prediction — it answers "what if the ship's current heading simply continues," which history says is the case to respect.
Why this is appearing: this company files quarterly, so its recent trajectory could be measured rather than assumed — the engine matched Feb 2026, Nov 2025, Aug 2025 against the same quarters one year earlier and found revenue +8.9% · operating income +9.7% · net income +9.2% year-over-year. That measured heading is what the stress case extends forward. Of those, the stress case extends the worst matched quarter — the one ending May 31, 2025 (revenue +8.0%, operating income +9.1% YoY) — not the average. Data measured through Feb 28, 2026 — this card recalculates automatically when the next quarterly filing is ingested. Companies without quarterly filings (many foreign listings) never show this card: with no measured trajectory, there is nothing honest to repeat.
Narrative Economics
The story the market is telling about this stock — the intangible X-factor (founder mythology, cult dynamics, TAM-of-imagination) that moves price beyond what cash flows alone explain. After Shiller, Narrative Economics.
No narrative profile yet for CTAS — it's generated by the pipeline (market-narrative step).
AI Lens 4th lens · how AI reaches this business · 5-yr
2026-08-14
The creme is there an opportunity here? Neutral
AI is a margin tailwind at Cintas, not an investment thesis - the route network is the moat and machines cannot copy it.
Exposure is low by design (29) and the position mildly favorable (61): the scarce asset is stop density and regulated physical service, so AI arrives as routing, pricing and SG&A leverage on a business already compounding operating margin from 19.5% to 22.8%. The only AI-specific downside worth monitoring is procurement-side transparency eroding the annual escalator - watch the pricing share of organic growth and SG&A as a percent of revenue; if price contribution fades while SG&A leverage stalls, the compounding math the bull case rests on weakens for reasons AI helped cause.
61
AI Position
Mildly favorable - physical moat, AI is a cost lever not a thesis
Cheap intelligence cannot wash, deliver, or inspect anything, so AI reaches Cintas mainly as a quiet margin lever on routing, pricing and SG&A while the route-density barrier stays physical.
Exposure 29 Confidence 73 50 = neutral
Primary Tailwind

AI applied to route sequencing, garment loss/replacement forecasting, and micro-segmented price/renewal decisions across roughly a million customer locations converts directly into incremental margin on an already-fixed truck-and-plant cost base.

Primary Pressure

AI-assisted procurement on the customer side makes Cintas's annual escalators and per-garment charges legible and benchmarkable, which is the one credible path to compressing the price component of organic growth that the model depends on.

Forensic fingerprint same 11 factors for every stock · 0 unfavorable · 50 neutral · 100 favorable
Underlying Need Persistence do people still need this at all? 87
Businesses still need clean garments, mats, stocked restrooms, first-aid cabinets and fire inspections regardless of how cheap intelligence gets.
Every deliverable is a physical consumable or a regulated physical inspection; software cannot substitute for the object or the site visit. The only erosion is secular workplace informality and hybrid work reducing garment counts, which is unrelated to AI.
uniform rental organic volume vs price · wearer counts per customer location · first aid/fire segment growth mix
relevance 62 · confidence 84
Solution Persistence will they still solve it this way? 79
The weekly-route rental model survives because its economics are laundry capex and stop density, not information processing.
Alternatives (buy-and-launder, disposable mats) existed long before AI and are chosen on capital and labor, which cheap intelligence barely changes. Risk is a slow drift toward direct-purchase programs, not an AI substitution event.
rental vs direct-sale revenue mix · stops per route trend · customer contract renewal rates
relevance 66 · confidence 76
Intelligence Commoditization does cheap AI power them or copy them? 56
Cheap AI is an input Cintas buys, not a product that can be copied out from under it.
No part of the revenue line is an information good, so commoditizing intelligence neither destroys pricing nor gifts a rival a shortcut; it lowers the cost of the analytics layer Cintas already runs on its SAP backbone.
tech spend disclosed in SG&A · routing/analytics program announcements · competitor analytics claims
relevance 44 · confidence 66
Responsibility Transfer are they paid to take the blame? 71
First aid, safety and fire protection are partly paid for as documented compliance and transferred liability.
Customers outsource OSHA-adjacent stocking and NFPA inspection recordkeeping precisely because they do not want to own the audit trail or the failure; an internal AI system does not absorb the liability or perform the physical test.
fire protection revenue growth · inspection compliance documentation offerings · regulatory inspection frequency changes
relevance 57 · confidence 68
Scarcity Migration do their assets get rarer or more common? 73
As information gets abundant, the scarce thing is the plant-plus-route network, which AI cannot replicate.
Cintas's advantage is stop density around ~hundreds of processing and distribution facilities; AI raises the relative value of owning physical last-mile frequency because everything upstream of it gets cheap.
route density gains from M&A · plant capacity utilization · cost per stop trend
relevance 72 · confidence 74
Customer DIY Preference will customers just build it themselves? 63
Insourcing laundry means buying washers and hiring labor - AI makes that no easier.
The bear case that customers bring services in-house is real but capital- and labor-driven; cheap intelligence does not lower the cost of industrial laundering, mat swapping or cabinet restocking. Larger customers with existing facilities remain the exposed cohort.
national account insourcing losses · lost-business rate disclosure · customer retention by segment
relevance 64 · confidence 70
AI Intermediation Position do AI agents go through them or around them? 54
Procurement agents could shop uniform contracts, but the service still routes through a truck Cintas owns.
AI can compress the sales and quoting layer and make bids comparable, which cuts both ways; Cintas's local density usually wins a price-transparent bid, but transparency itself trims the escalator.
RFP intensity in national accounts · price realization per stop · sales headcount productivity
relevance 41 · confidence 60
Data Leverage does their data make AI better? 65
Route, wear-out and churn data across a million locations is genuinely proprietary but modest in economic leverage.
The data improves garment lifecycle forecasting, cross-sell targeting and renewal pricing - real basis points, not a defensible AI product. It is not a dataset outsiders would pay for or that creates a network effect.
cross-sell products per customer · garment amortization/loss expense · organic growth attributed to pricing
relevance 50 · confidence 62
AI Margin Conversion do the AI savings become profit? 68
Fragmented, sub-scale competition means efficiency gains are more likely retained than competed away.
Operating margin already moved 19.5%->22.8% over five years on route and pricing discipline; AI-assisted routing and back-office automation extend that path because thousands of local rivals lack the density to force the savings back into price.
SG&A as percent of revenue · incremental operating margin per quarter · gross margin above 50%
relevance 67 · confidence 70
Revenue Unit Durability does the thing they charge for survive? 77
The monetized unit - a recurring weekly stop per location - is physical and contract-indexed.
Unlike seats or per-task software fees, nothing about the billing unit shrinks when a customer's own headcount becomes more AI-productive except garment wearer counts, a slow and partial effect.
revenue per stop trend · wearer count sensitivity to layoffs · contract escalator realization
relevance 70 · confidence 74
Entrant Compression how easily can newcomers copy them? 74
Cheap software does not build laundry plants, buy trucks or hire drivers.
The barrier that matters is capital plus route density plus local scale, none of which AI compresses; an AI-native entrant would still face the same worst-in-class unit economics on day one.
new regional entrants with scale · asset-light disruptor traction · M&A multiples for tuck-ins
relevance 58 · confidence 72

AI Lens thesis

What the market may be underestimating

Downside o s ows up on the customer side first.arowsows up.o net effect.i lands lnet effect.o AI lands.a first.i lows up.o net.critical_hinge:

Outcome range spread 31

42Bear case
61Central case
73Bull case
Three headline numbers, deliberately never blended: Position (which way), Exposure (how much it matters at all), Confidence (how sure). The fingerprint asks every stock the same 11 questions so companies a sector label would lump together get told apart. Not an input to GEM/Coal or the Q/V/S lenses.
Claude Reading
Independent analyst synthesis · claude-opus-4-7 · generated 2026-08-14 00:29:45
Verdict Overvalued but not catastrophically — fair value $165-185 (26-29x forward EPS), not $89; trim above $200, revisit as a buy only below $170 or after a growth-driven re-rating.

Looking at the raw quarterly tape first: revenue has marched from $2.47B (May-24) to $2.84B (Feb-26) — that's ~15% over seven quarters, or roughly 8% annualized, with YoY in the most recent quarter running 8.8% ($2.84B vs $2.61B). Net income growth is running hotter: $502M vs $463M = 8.4% YoY, but the two-year stack shows earnings compounding faster than revenue as margins have crept from ~16.8% to 17.7-18.1%. FCF conversion is genuinely elite — $1.76B FCF on $1.81B NI is ~97%, and capex intensity is only ~4% of revenue. ROIC of 27.6% on modest leverage (D/E 0.52, net debt ~$2.15B against $2.36B operating income = ~0.9x) is the real story: this is a compounder that doesn't need much capital to grow. That said, the quarterly deceleration is real — YoY revenue growth was ~9% a year ago and is now 8-9%, not accelerating despite the "secular tailwinds" narrative.

Where I part company with the synthesis: the $86-89 DCF fair value implies CTAS should trade at roughly 20x earnings, which is what a 3-4% grower deserves. But CTAS is demonstrably a 7-8% top-line, 15%+ bottom-line grower with 28% ROIC and near-perpetual pricing power in a business where customers rarely switch. That profile historically clears at 30-35x, not 20x. The synthesis model's $89 anchor looks like it's punishing CTAS for being expensive by assuming mean-reversion to a growth rate the company hasn't actually shown. At 46x forward earnings and 29x EV/EBITDA the stock IS expensive — I don't dispute overvalued — but "fair value is $86" (a 58% drawdown) is a number that would require CTAS to structurally break, and nothing in this data suggests that. A more defensible fair value using a 28-32x multiple on ~$7 forward EPS is $195-225, i.e., roughly where it trades.

The contrarian case that actually worries me isn't the DCF; it's three things the models underweight. First, quarterly growth is decelerating precisely when the multiple demands acceleration — 8.8% YoY is fine, but at 46x P/E the market is priced for reacceleration or continued margin creep, and margins at 17.7% may be near a structural ceiling for a rental/services business. Second, insider activity is quietly bearish: every discretionary transaction in the shown window is a sale (option exercises immediately dumped, no open-market buys), which is normal for executives at richly-valued shares but not a vote of confidence at these levels. Third, the market-forces "macro headwinds" flag matters more than it appears — CTAS's customers are SMB and mid-market employers whose headcount is the direct driver of uniform rentals; if employment softens, organic growth compresses to 3-4% and the multiple has nowhere to hide. The narrative layer's observation that ~55% of the premium is story-driven is directionally right but the story has been validated over 20+ years, so it won't crack on one soft quarter.

Net verdict: I partially agree with the "overvalued" synthesis but strongly dissent from the magnitude. This is a genuinely elite business — 28% ROIC, 97% FCF conversion, decade of compounding — that deserves a premium, just not this premium. Fair value in my read is $165-185 (26-29x forward earnings, a meaningful but not punitive discount to today), implying 10-20% downside rather than the 55% the synthesis flags. The setup is asymmetric on the wrong side: limited upside from here without multiple expansion beyond 46x (unlikely), and material downside if growth slips below 7% or if margins stall at 18%. I would not short — quality compounders punish shorts — but I wouldn't be a buyer above $180, and existing holders should be trimming into strength. The models are directionally correct that this is expensive; they are quantitatively wrong that fair value is anywhere near $89.

GPT Reading
Independent reading · gpt-5.4 · generated 2026-08-14 00:30:02
Verdict Overvalued at $204.5 — elite business, but fair value looks closer to $150, with little room for any slowdown in 7-8% revenue growth or current margin levels.

What jumps out is not the quality debate — Cintas is plainly excellent — but the size of the premium investors are paying for excellence in a business that is still, underneath the polish, a steady service operator rather than a true hyper-growth compounder. Revenue has risen from $7.12B in 2021 to $10.34B in 2025, an 8.3% CAGR, while net income climbed from $1.11B to $1.81B, about 16% annually, driven by both growth and margin lift. That is real operating leverage: gross margin moved to 50.0%, operating margin to 22.8%, and net margin to 17.5% in 2025. The quarterly run-rate remains strong, with the last four quarters totaling roughly $10.99B of revenue and $1.94B of net income, and the latest quarter at $2.84B and $502.5M implies another 7-8% top-line gain and high-teens earnings growth. But at $204.5, the stock is capitalized at $81.4B, which means investors are paying roughly 42x trailing run-rate earnings, about 7.4x current annualized sales, and around 46x the last reported annual EPS base implied by the given P/E. For a company growing revenue high single digits and earnings mid-teens from already-elevated margins, that is a heroic multiple.

The underlying business deserves a premium, just not this premium. Free cash flow of $1.76B on $10.34B of revenue is excellent, and ROIC at 27.6% is the clearest sign this is a genuinely advantaged operator, not a low-quality rollup. Debt is manageable at $2.42B against $2.17B of operating cash flow, though cash is only $264M, so this is not a fortress balance sheet in the sense of excess liquidity. What matters more is that the margin story looks closer to mature optimization than early innings. Net margins have been remarkably consistent quarter to quarter, mostly between 16.8% and 18.1%, which is admirable but also suggests the easy gains have largely been harvested. If I annualize the last two quarters, I get about $2.0B of earnings power. A fair premium multiple for this kind of durability might be 28-32x, which would support roughly $56B-$64B of equity value, or something like $140-$160 per share. To justify $204.5, I think you need either sustained low-double-digit revenue growth for years or another meaningful leg of margin expansion from already-elite levels; the reported numbers do not show that.

The strongest argument against this view is that Cintas has earned the right to trade unlike a normal industrial services company because its business mix behaves more like a subscription utility with pricing power. The revenue line is unusually dependable, the cash conversion is strong, returns on capital are outstanding, and earnings have compounded much faster than sales for years. If the business can keep growing revenue 7-8%, hold operating margins above 22%, and use free cash flow plus buybacks to produce 12-15% EPS growth, then 40x earnings is not automatically absurd in a market starved for resilient compounders. The recent quarterly data actually support that defense: revenue went from $2.47B to $2.84B over eight quarters, while quarterly net income moved from $414M to $503M, and there is no sign of margin collapse. Even the insider activity shown is mostly option exercises and related sales, not a broad rush for the exits. A smart bull would say the “mature business” label is misleading because mature businesses usually do not post 27% ROIC and near-18% net margins at this scale.

I still weigh that argument less heavily because valuation is now assuming the next five years look almost as good as the last five, despite a larger base and less room for margin upside. Price-to-book at 17.9x is not useful by itself for an asset-light compounder, but EV/EBITDA near 29x and price/sales above 8x are hard to wave away for a route-based business with macro exposure. The current ratio of 2.09 and debt/equity of 0.52 are fine, not magical; the dividend yield is just 0.9%, so investors are not being paid to wait if growth cools. If revenue decelerates from 7.8% toward 5-6% while margins merely hold flat, the stock has substantial multiple-compression risk even if the business keeps executing. That is the key disconnect: the company looks superb, but the stock already prices in superb execution as a permanent condition.

What would change my mind is simple. If the next few quarters show revenue accelerating back above 9-10% while net margin pushes sustainably above 18% and free cash flow clears $2.0B annually without balance-sheet strain, then I would accept that my framework is underestimating the compounding runway and move my fair value higher. Conversely, if organic growth slips into the mid-single digits or operating margin stalls around 22-23%, I would expect the market eventually to re-rate this toward a high-20s or low-30s earnings multiple. At today’s price, the burden of proof is on continued near-flawless execution.

Grok Reading
Independent reading · grok-4.5 · generated 2026-08-14 00:30:33
Verdict High-quality compounder massively overvalued at $204; cash-flow reality supports closer to $110–135

Cintas is an operationally excellent business being priced like a high-growth software compounder. Revenue has marched from $7.12B in FY2021 to $10.34B in FY2025 at an 8.3% CAGR, while net income compounded at 16% to $1.81B and free cash flow at 17.8% to $1.76B — the classic signature of a mature earner with pricing power, operating leverage, and aggressive capital return. Quarterly run-rate is still intact: the February 2026 quarter delivered $2.84B revenue and $502.5M net income at a 17.7% margin, continuing a multi-year pattern of mid-to-high single-digit top-line growth and rock-steady mid-to-high teens net margins. ROE of 38.7% and ROIC of 27.6% on a clean balance sheet (debt-to-equity 0.52, current ratio 2.09) confirm genuine economic moat quality. None of that is in dispute.

What the numbers also say, without apology, is that the market has already paid for a decade of perfection. At $204.5 the stock trades at 46.5× earnings, 8.1× sales, and 29.3× EV/EBITDA, producing a free-cash-flow yield of roughly 2.2% on the latest $1.76B FCF. That is a valuation that only works if mid-single-digit organic growth, continued 50–100 bps of annual margin expansion, and multiple stability all persist simultaneously. Recent revenue growth is already decelerating (secondary signal flags it explicitly; the YoY print is 7.8%), and net margins have been range-bound between 16.8% and 18.1% rather than structurally expanding. The prior model’s DCF anchor near $89 is aggressive on the downside, but even a more generous 25–28× multiple on forward earnings power lands fair value well below $140. The 55%+ premium to cash-flow fundamentals is almost entirely narrative: the “steady compounder with buyback turbocharge” story is durable among quality allocators, yet it is carrying more than half the current price.

The strongest case against this read is straightforward and deserves weight. Earnings have grown at 15%+ for years while revenue grew half as fast, proving the capital-light, buyback-amplified model works in practice. Gross margins sit at 50% and operating margins at 22.8%; if Cintas can keep taking price in a fragmented uniform-rental market and bolt on small M&A, a 12–14% EPS CAGR for another five years is plausible. At that trajectory, today’s $81B market cap could be supported by ~$3.2B of FY2030 net income even after moderate multiple compression, and patient holders who treat CTAS as a bond proxy with upside might still compound in the high single digits including the 0.9% dividend. Insiders are not dumping in size (activity is mostly option-related), FCF conversion remains pristine, and the business has historically shrugged off mild recessions. A smart opponent would argue that paying 46× for 15% earnings growth with fortress returns on capital is how quality compounds are bought, not sold.

That argument fails for me on arithmetic and opportunity cost. Sustaining a mid-40s multiple requires either re-acceleration that the decelerating quarterly trend does not support, or permanent acceptance of a 2% FCF yield in a world where capital has a cost again. I would flip toward fair or undervalued only if organic revenue growth re-accelerates sustainably above 10%, net margins clear and hold 19%+, or the stock corrects into the $120–140 zone where the FCF yield and PEG begin to compensate for maturity. A sharp slowdown below 5% revenue growth or a credit-driven halt to the buyback engine would confirm the overvaluation more violently.

Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Each AI above independently stated a direction (undervalued, fairly valued, or overvalued) and how strongly it believes it (conviction, 0–5). We combine those into a Bull-Bear Index on a 0–10 scale: 5 is neutral, 10 is maximum bullish (undervalued at full conviction), 0 is maximum bearish. We compute the score ourselves with the same arithmetic for every seat — the models never grade their own bullishness — so the three are directly comparable. Δ shows how far each seat sits from the panel average of 1.3; a large Δ marks the dissenting voice, usually the one worth reading.
Claude claude-opus-4-7 2.0
overvalued · conviction 3/5 · Δ +0.7 vs panel · self: 4.0
GPT gpt-5.4 1.0
overvalued · conviction 4/5 · Δ -0.3 vs panel · self: 3.0
Grok grok-4.5 1.0
overvalued · conviction 4/5 · Δ -0.3 vs panel · self: 2.0
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Separate reads — Company Quality (is it a great business?), Valuation (is it mispriced?), and General Sentiment (how macro + narrative are pushing it), plus AI Impact (how the AI wave reshapes it), kept deliberately apart · 2026-08-14 00:40:43
Delvantic - Cairn AI
Quality — wait for a dip 8/10
Fortress-quality compounder trading at a full-fat price — I want to own it, but not here.
The cruxWhether $200 already prices in years of continued margin expansion and pricing power; if it does, upside is capped and any wobble unwinds the premium fast.
Forensic checks Derived mechanically from CTAS's filed financials — not from the AI lenses
Liquidity & RunwaySelf-Funding
DilutionHeavy Dilution
Earnings QualityHigh Earnings Quality
The four lensesswitch a tab for its full read — score + evidence
Company Quality
+86
Fortress
edge √Σ 153 · risk √Σ 25 · conf 8/10

Revenue has compounded from $7.12B (2021) to $10.34B (2025), roughly 9-10% per year, while gross margin has expanded every single year from 46.6% to 50.0% and operating margin from 19.5% to 22.8%. Net income has grown from $1.11B to $1.81B and FCF from $1.22B to $1.76B, with OCF/NI of 1.23x and negative accruals (-3.8% of assets) - hallmarks of clean, cash-backed earnings. Beneish M at -2.54 and Altman Z at 13.25 signal no manipulation flags and deep solvency. The dilution module's 39.7% diluted share CAGR is a mechanical artifact of the 4-for-1 stock split (103.4M to 410.3M shares in 2025); on a split-adjusted basis the share count has actually drifted DOWN from ~430M-equivalent in 2021 to 410M in 2025, and buyback/SBC of 721% confirms aggressive net repurchases. SBC is a modest 1.2% of revenue. Net debt of ~$2.16B against $1.76B annual FCF is roughly 1.2x FCF - trivial leverage for a business of this cash-generative quality. Insider tape shows only routine option-exercise-and-sell behavior by directors (Tysoe, Barstad) plus small awards; no open-market buys but nothing suggesting distress or aggressive dumping either. This is a mature, dominant uniform/facility-services franchise executing at the top of its class.

Strengths 4
m85
Multi-year margin expansion
Gross margin climbed every year from 46.6% (2021) to 50.0% (2025); operating margin from 19.5% to 22.8%. Consistent operating leverage on ~9% revenue growth.
m80
High-quality earnings
OCF/NI 1.23x, accruals -3.8% of assets, Beneish M -2.54, Altman Z 13.25. Earnings are cash-backed with no mechanical red flags.
m75
Steady FCF compounding
FCF grew from $1.22B to $1.76B over five years; self-funding with modest net debt (~1.2x FCF).
m65
Disciplined per-share management
The 39.7% share CAGR flag is a 4-for-1 split artifact. Buyback/SBC ratio of 721% and SBC only 1.2% of revenue mean per-share value is being protected, not eroded.
Concerns 2
m20
Modest net debt, minimal cash cushion
Liquid cash of only $264M (0.3% of mkt cap) against $2.16B net debt. Immaterial given FCF, but the balance sheet is a constraint rather than a cushion.
m15
No insider buying
Trailing 12 months show $3.56M in sales (mostly option-exercise-and-sell by directors) and zero open-market buys. Neutral, not negative, but no conviction signal.
This is one of the cleanest industrial compounders on the tape. Margins are expanding year after year, cash conversion is above 1x, the manipulation screens are pristine, and the 'heavy dilution' flag is a split artifact - split-adjusted share count is actually falling. The only genuine soft spots are a thin cash balance and modest net debt, both trivial against $1.76B of annual FCF. Insider behavior is boring in the good way. Business quality sits comfortably in the Strong-to-Fortress zone; my read anchors just above 87.
Verify before trusting this (5)
  • Confirm the 4-for-1 stock split in FY2025 fully explains the diluted-share jump from 103.4M to 410.3M
  • Customer concentration and contract renewal rates in the 10-K
  • Debt maturity schedule and covenant terms against the $2.16B net debt position
  • Organic vs. acquired revenue mix behind the 9-10% growth
  • Pension and lease obligations that could sit off the headline debt figure
Valuation / Mispricing
-70
Rich
edge √Σ 27 · risk √Σ 114 · conf 7/10
Price $200.70 vs deserved ~$160-$180 on quality-adjusted PE anchor; ~15-25% overpriced, no margin of safety. attractive below $165.00

The composite fair value sits at $86.46 and the signal-adjusted at $89.08, implying about 56% downside from $200.70. The anchored PE method ($161) is the most generous and still leaves 20% downside; the DCF ($70.59) and EPV floor ($43.65) suggest the market is capitalizing a lot of future price hikes and M&A that have not happened yet. Even if you accept that the models understate a Fortress-grade compounder (high-quality earnings, expanding margins, $1.76B FCF, Altman Z 13.25), a fair 'quality tax' of 25-35% on top of the anchored PE gets you to roughly $200-$215, essentially today's price. That is the bull case, not a margin of safety.

Cheap signals 2
m22
Quality deserves a premium the models undershoot
Fortress score 86, FCF $1.76B, clean accruals, and margin expansion justify paying above screen-level FV; this narrows but does not close the gap.
m15
No earnings-quality haircut needed
High earnings quality (score 3) means the reported numbers are real, so deserved value sits at the top of the model range rather than below it.
Rich / priced-in 3
m78
Price ~2.25x composite FV
At $200.70 vs $86.46 composite / $89.08 signal-adjusted FV, the implied downside is -56%. Even discounting DCF/EPV as conservative, the gap is too wide to call fair.
m62
Even the generous anchor implies downside
The anchored PE of $161 is the highest of the three methods and still sits 20% below the current price. You need to beat the most optimistic model just to break even.
m55
Priced for perpetual pricing power
Bear case is right that a 3-4% organic grower in a mature market shouldn't trade at 2.25x DCF; the multiple assumes indefinite price hikes and buyback compounding at current returns.
Great business, wrong price. I love the Fortress quality read but I am not paying 2.25x composite FV and 1.25x the most generous anchored-PE number for a low-teens grower, no matter how clean the accruals are. This is the classic 'wonderful company already understood by the market' setup - fully valued to modestly rich. I would need it back near $165 to feel I am buying quality at a reasonable price, and closer to $145 to feel I have any real margin of safety.
Verify before trusting this (5)
  • Organic revenue growth ex-M&A and ex-price in latest 10-Q
  • Pricing vs volume split in uniform rental segment
  • Incremental margin trajectory and whether route density gains are sustaining
  • M&A pipeline and multiples paid for tuck-ins
  • Buyback pace vs SBC dilution on a split-adjusted basis
General Sentiment
+24
Tailwind
tail √Σ 72 · head √Σ 47 · conf 6/10

The macro backdrop is mildly supportive: VIX at 14.6, S&P at highs, a 9-day established risk-on regime. But CTAS has a beta of 0.92 and sits in specialty business services, so the risk-on juice barely touches it - this name does not rip on animal spirits. What actually presses on the tape here is the narrative: a strong, durable steady-compounder story with medium cult status. That archetype attracts sticky, quality-factor money that rarely leaves, and the multi-year momentum (8.3% CAGR, deleveraging) keeps validating the story - a self-reinforcing sentiment tailwind. The offsetting pressure is that at $201 vs a DCF anchor near $89, the narrative is stretched, and any crack in the compounder story (a price-hike miss, a customer insourcing headline) would hit disproportionately because sentiment is what supports the premium, not fundamentals. Higher rates (10y 4.68%) and a 26x market PE are a low-grade drag on any high-multiple compounder, but this is background noise, not an active press. News flow is quiet - one mildly cautious Nasdaq 100 mention, nothing narrative-breaking. Net: a modest tailwind - the tape is calm, the story is intact and self-reinforcing, but the intensity is muted by low beta and the always-present valuation overhang.

Tailwinds 3
m55
Durable compounder narrative intact
Strong-intensity, durable steady-compounder story with medium cult following. This archetype pulls in quality/GARP flows that stay put, and multi-year momentum keeps re-validating the story - a slow, persistent bid.
m30
Risk-on tape, but muted by beta
S&P at highs, VIX 14.6, 9-day risk-on regime - constructive backdrop. But at beta 0.92 in specialty services, CTAS does not capture much of the risk-on lift; it is a mild positive, not a driver.
m35
Momentum self-reinforcing
Positive 3-year trend, deleveraging balance sheet, steady compounding - the tape rewards names that keep delivering, and this one keeps delivering, which locks in the sentiment premium.
Headwinds 2
m40
Valuation-vs-DCF overhang
Stock at 2.25x the DCF anchor. Sentiment is doing the heavy lifting to support the multiple, so any narrative wobble hits disproportionately hard - a latent, not active, pressure.
m25
Rates and market PE drag on high-multiple names
10y at 4.68% and market PE 26 pressure premium-multiple compounders at the margin. Low-grade, ambient headwind - not decisive here but not zero.
Net a modest tailwind. The narrative here is the whole game - a durable, strong-intensity compounder story with a loyal holder base, and nothing in the news or tape is challenging it right now. The risk-on regime helps at the margin but this is not a beta-driven name. The real vulnerability is that sentiment, not fundamentals, is holding up a 2.25x-DCF multiple - so the pressure is asymmetric: a small crack in the story would unwind fast. Today, though, no crack is visible. Tailwind, but I would not call it strong.
Verify before trusting this (4)
  • Any price-hike traction miss or customer insourcing news that cracks the compounder story
  • Rotation out of quality/defensive industrials into higher-beta cyclicals if risk-on intensifies
  • Sell-side target revisions - a downgrade citing valuation would matter more than usual given the premium
  • VIX spike or curve re-inversion that would flip macro sensitivity for high-multiple names
The market-wide tape + this name's exposure to it (beta / sector / narrative durability). Context on the non-fundamental pressure — not a call on the business or the price. processId: detail-general-sentiment
AI Impact
+42
Mildly favorable - physical moat, AI is a cost lever not a thesis
opp √Σ 92 · thr √Σ 0 · conf 7/10
AI opportunities 9
m46
Underlying Need Persistence
Businesses still need clean garments, mats, stocked restrooms, first-aid cabinets and fire inspections regardless of how cheap intelligence gets.
m38
Solution Persistence
The weekly-route rental model survives because its economics are laundry capex and stop density, not information processing.
m24
Responsibility Transfer
First aid, safety and fire protection are partly paid for as documented compliance and transferred liability.
m33
Scarcity Migration
As information gets abundant, the scarce thing is the plant-plus-route network, which AI cannot replicate.
m17
Customer DIY Preference
Insourcing laundry means buying washers and hiring labor - AI makes that no easier.
m15
Data Leverage
Route, wear-out and churn data across a million locations is genuinely proprietary but modest in economic leverage.
m24
AI Margin Conversion
Fragmented, sub-scale competition means efficiency gains are more likely retained than competed away.
m38
Revenue Unit Durability
The monetized unit - a recurring weekly stop per location - is physical and contract-indexed.
m28
Entrant Compression
Cheap software does not build laundry plants, buy trucks or hire drivers.
AI threats 0

None surfaced.

AI is a margin tailwind at Cintas, not an investment thesis - the route network is the moat and machines cannot copy it. Exposure is low by design (29) and the position mildly favorable (61): the scarce asset is stop density and regulated physical service, so AI arrives as routing, pricing and SG&A leverage on a business already compounding operating margin from 19.5% to 22.8%. The only AI-specific downside worth monitoring is procurement-side transparency eroding the annual escalator - watch the pricing share of organic growth and SG&A as a percent of revenue; if price contribution fades while SG&A leverage stalls, the compounding math the bull case rests on weakens for reasons AI helped cause.
Verify before trusting this (8)
  • route density gains from M&A
  • plant capacity utilization
  • cost per stop trend
  • revenue per stop trend
  • wearer count sensitivity to layoffs
  • contract escalator realization
  • SG&A as percent of revenue
  • incremental operating margin per quarter
The structural effect of the AI wave on this specific business over the next ~5 years — demand, cost leverage, moat, barriers to entry, position in the AI stack. The reality beneath the AI story, not the story's market pressure (General Sentiment owns that) — and not a call on the business today or the price.
Growth Outlook
not run

This lens hasn't been run for this ticker yet.

The forward growth verdict — is the business itself likely to grow (next 2 quarters / year 1 / years 2–3), judged against its category and against printed expectations. The full horizon ladder + creme renders on the Growth Outlook card above. Not a call on the price (Valuation owns that) or the tape (Sentiment owns that).
Please log in to view trade setups
The Augustus trade-setup read is a members feature.
Log in
Lenses kept deliberately separate — Company Quality (price-agnostic), Valuation (price-conditional), General Sentiment (non-fundamental macro/narrative pressure), AI Impact (structural ~5yr AI exposure), and Growth Outlook (the forward growth verdict). The scores are not blended. Filing-level items (convertibles, lock-ups, customer concentration) are v2 — see each lens's "verify."
Price Prediction
Lower -7.6% v0.6.0 View full prediction →

When we made this prediction on Aug 14, 2026, CTAS was $200.70. We expect it to be $185.50 by Feb 2027, and we consider it great value under $165.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Aug 14, 2026.

Price when predicted$200.70
Our estimate for Feb 2027$185.50-7.6%
Great value below$165.00
Price history shown (6 Months)

Blue is our prediction, starting the day we made it. Grey is a slower route to the same place — the same destination, taking longer. Black is the actual price, so you can see how we are doing.

Community AI Feedback
No community reviews yet for CTAS. Be the first — hit How to Contribute, have any AI review this page, and paste its take back here.
My Notes personal — only you see this
v1.1.562 · 9b2927c4 · 2026-08-22 16:52:06