Skip to main content
Homepage
Full 18-step deep-dive · ~20–30 min · a member feature.
AGING Analysis Report
Jul 30, 2026
24 days ago · 100% complete
NOT DEPENDABLE This report predates a filing — its financial basis has been replaced.
Report generated: Jul 30, 2026 · Filing on record since: Aug 19, 2026 · 19 days after
For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page

What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Paycom Software, Inc. (PAYC) — 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 -4 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 58 · Value -55 · Sentiment -17 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $140.33 vs $161.49 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.

Paycom Software, Inc.

PAYC NYSE
Technology · Software - Application
Oklahoma City, OK 73142, United States paycom.com Updated Jul 30, 12:53pm
Price
$161.58
Market Cap
$7.9B
Employees
5,770
Beta
0.80
Avg Volume
955,070
Last Dividend
$1.50
CEO
Mr. Chad R. Richison

Paycom Software, Inc. is a provider of cloud-based human capital management software delivered as software-as-a-service. The company focuses on helping organizations manage the entire employment life cycle on a single platform, from talent acquisition and onboarding through payroll, time and labor management, benefits administration, and talent management. Paycom Software, Inc. primarily serves midsize businesses in the United States, typically those with dozens to several thousand employees, offering integrated tools that centralize employee data and automate HR and payroll processes. Its solutions are designed to reduce administrative complexity for HR and finance teams, support compliance with labor and tax regulations, and provide employees with self-service capabilities for tasks such as time entry, benefits selection, and pay review. The company generates most of its revenue from subscriptions to its software platform, supplemented by implementation services, and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, where it continues to operate as a notable player in the human capital management software market.

Runs with full report Generated: Jul 30, 2026 6:21pm
Price Overview
Price at report time
$161.49
as of Jul 30, 6:17pm (24d ago)
Change · Jul 30
-7.43 (-4.40%)
Day Range
$156.41 – $166.05
52-Week Range
$104.90 – $248.95
50-Day MA
$138.71
200-Day MA
$145.20
Volume
1,795,255.00
Right now · live
Log in to get the live feed
Members see the real-time price and the move since this report (over 24d).
Share Structure
Outstanding 46,600,000.00
Float 39,892,280.00
Free Float 85.6%
High free float — 85.6% of shares trade freely, ~14.4% 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: Jul 30, 2026 6:27pm (24d ago)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
The directional story — useful even when net income is negative.
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 6:27pm (24d 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: Jul 30, 2026 6:21pm
P/E Ratio (Price per dollar of earnings)
HEX
Stock Price / EPS (Diluted)
19.99
Stock Price: $161.58
EPS (Diluted): 8.08
P/B Ratio (Price vs net asset value)
HEX
Stock Price / Book Value Per Share
5.23
Stock Price: $161.58
Total Equity: $1.73B
Shares: 56,116,000
EV/EBITDA (Total value vs operating profit)
HEX
Enterprise Value / EBITDA
10.10
Market Cap: $7.88B
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $370.00M
EBITDA: $743.50M
Enterprise Value (Takeover price (cap + debt - cash))
HEX
Market Cap + Total Debt - Cash
$7.5B
Market Cap: $7.88B
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $370.00M
Gross Margin (Revenue left after direct costs)
HEX
Gross Profit / Revenue
83.2%
Gross Profit: $1.71B
Revenue: $2.05B
Operating Margin (Revenue left after all operations)
HEX
Operating Income / Revenue
27.6%
Operating Income: $567.20M
Revenue: $2.05B
Net Margin (Revenue left as actual profit)
HEX
Net Income / Revenue
22.1%
Net Income: $453.40M
Revenue: $2.05B
ROE (Profit from shareholder equity)
HEX
Net Income / Total Equity
26.2%
Net Income: $453.40M
Total Equity: $1.73B
ROIC (Profit from all invested capital)
HEX
NOPAT / Invested Capital
30.5%
Operating Income: $567.20M
Tax Rate: 26.8%
Equity: $1.73B
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $370.00M
Zero debt — invested capital = equity minus cash (very efficient)
Current Ratio (Can it pay short-term bills)
HEX
Current Assets / Current Liabilities
1.09
Current Assets: $5.84B
Current Liabilities: $5.37B
Debt/Equity (Leverage — debt vs equity)
HEX
Total Debt / Total Equity
0.00
Short-Term Debt: $0.00
Long-Term Debt: $0.00
Total Debt: $0.00
Total Equity: $1.73B
Zero debt — this company carries no debt obligations. Strongest possible score.
Rev/Share (Top-line per share)
HEX
Revenue / Shares Outstanding
$36.56
Revenue: $2.05B
Shares: 56,116,000
Book Value/Share (Net assets per share)
HEX
(Total Assets - Total Liabilities) / Shares
$30.86
Total Equity: $1.73B
Shares: 56,116,000
FCF/Share (Real cash generated per share)
HEX
(Operating Cash Flow + CapEx) / Shares
$7.27
Operating CF: $678.90M
CapEx: -$270.90M
Shares: 56,116,000
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: $1.50
Stock Price: $161.58
Payout Ratio (Earnings paid out as dividends)
HEX
Dividends Paid / Net Income
18.7%
Dividends Paid: -$84.80M
Net Income: $453.40M
Industry Benchmarks
Last run: Jul 30, 2026 6:21pm
Compares PAYC 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: Jul 30, 2026 6:27pm (24d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue $1.1B $1.4B $1.7B $1.9B $2.1B
Cost of Revenue $161.9M $212.7M $276.3M $334.6M $345.4M
Gross Profit $893.6M $1.2B $1.4B $1.5B $1.7B
Operating Expenses $640.1M $783.8M $966.1M $914.3M $1.1B
Operating Income $253.6M $378.7M $451.3M $634.3M $567.2M
Net Income $196.0M $281.4M $340.8M $502.0M $453.4M
EBITDA $320.8M $471.4M $565.3M $780.2M $743.5M
EPS $3.39 $4.86 $5.91 $8.93 $8.13
EPS (Diluted) $3.37 $4.84 $5.88 $8.92 $8.08
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 6:17pm (24d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Cash & Equivalents $278.0M $400.7M $294.0M $402.0M $370.0M
Total Current Assets $2.3B $2.8B $2.8B $4.3B $5.8B
Total Assets $3.2B $3.9B $4.2B $5.9B $7.6B
Current Liabilities $2.0B $2.4B $2.5B $3.9B $5.4B
Long-Term Debt $27.4M $29.0M
Total Liabilities $2.3B $2.7B $2.9B $4.3B $5.9B
Total Equity $893.7M $1.2B $1.3B $1.6B $1.7B
Retained Earnings $915.6M $1.2B $1.5B $1.9B $2.3B
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 6:27pm (24d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Operating Cash Flow $319.4M $365.1M $485.0M $533.9M $678.9M
Capital Expenditure -$120.7M -$132.7M -$192.6M -$192.9M -$270.9M
Free Cash Flow $198.7M $232.4M $292.5M $341.0M $408.0M
Acquisitions (net)
Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) -$1.8M $-287,000 -$29.0M
Dividends Paid -$64.8M -$84.8M -$84.8M
Stock Buybacks -$94.7M -$286.6M -$122.8M -$325.5M
Net Change in Cash
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 6:27pm (24d ago)
Metric 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue Growth +30.3% +23.2% +11.2% +8.9%
Gross Profit Growth +30.1% +21.9% +9.3% +10.2%
Operating Income Growth +49.3% +19.2% +40.5% -10.6%
Net Income Growth +43.6% +21.1% +47.3% -9.7%
EBITDA Growth +46.9% +19.9% +38.0% -4.7%
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Jul 23, 2026 8:05pm (30d ago)
Date Dividend Declaration Record Payment
2026-05-26 $0.38
2026-03-09 $0.38
2025-11-24 $0.38
2025-08-25 $0.38
2025-05-27 $0.38
2025-03-10 $0.38
2024-11-25 $0.38
2024-08-26 $0.38
2024-05-24 $0.38
2024-03-01 $0.38
2023-11-24 $0.38
2023-08-25 $0.38
2023-05-26 $0.38
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 2026-08-19 10:36
0.3 : 1 recovery upside vs repeat-quarter downside
Recovery pays +6%; another quarter like the worst recent one costs 21%. Ratio 0.3:1.
CaseGrowthMarginFair valuevs price ($161.49)
Bull — recovery +14% 26.2% $171.54 +6%
Base — stabilizes +9% 22.8% $130.51 -19%
Bear — keeps slipping +5% 19.4% $97.26 -40%
Stress — last quarter repeats +9% 22.4% $128.01 -21%
The next quarters keep the trajectory of the worst recent matched quarter (ending 2025-09-30) — growth stays at 9.2% and margins bend by the same profit-vs-revenue ratio (×0.98). 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 Jun 2026, Mar 2026 against the same quarters one year earlier and found revenue +8.8% · operating income +27.3% · net income +14.9% 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 Sep 30, 2025 (revenue +9.2%, operating income +7.3% YoY) — not the average. Data measured through Jun 30, 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 PAYC — it's generated by the pipeline (market-narrative step).
AI Lens 4th lens · how AI reaches this business · 5-yr
2026-08-10
The creme is there an opportunity here? Conditional opportunity
The compliance shield genuinely holds, so the AI question here is not survival but whether margin expansion outruns the slow deflation of the per-employee billing unit.
Structurally favorable at 64 with wide-ish range 34 to 83: AI attacks Paycom's cost base far more than its reason for existing, and no mid-market CFO will internalize payroll tax liability regardless of how cheap software gets. The kill switch is the revenue unit - scored 49 on relevance 82 - because PEPM tracks client headcount and Paycom has already proven it will automate away its own fees. Watch two lines together before consensus does: gross margin pushing above 84 percent, and revenue per client employee; margin up with PEPM flat is the bull case, margin up with PEPM sliding means the savings are being handed to customers and to AI-armed downmarket rivals.
64
AI Position
Favorable - the compliance shield holds, but the billing unit is the soft spot
Cheap intelligence cuts Paycom's own service and implementation cost inside an 83% gross margin business that customers still refuse to own, while quietly threatening the per-employee unit it bills on.
Exposure 56 Confidence 72 50 = neutral
Primary Tailwind

Paycom's largest cost line is human service, implementation and support for mid-market clients; AI agents handling tax-notice research, configuration, and tier-one support cut delivery cost without touching per-employee-per-month pricing, which converts directly into gross and operating margin.

Primary Pressure

Revenue is priced per employee per module; if AI thins mid-market white-collar headcount across Paycom's own client base, the monetized unit deflates even as the software gets better and retention holds.

Critical Hinge

Whether AI-driven cost savings stay with Paycom or get competed away as cheap development lets Rippling, Gusto, ADP and Workday match feature breadth downmarket; watch PEPM realized per client and gross margin together - rising margin with flat PEPM is the win, rising margin with falling PEPM is not.

Hard to Reproduce

Multi-jurisdiction tax registrations and filing liability, the payroll error blame that no CFO wants to internalize, the single employee record spanning payroll, benefits and time, and an outside direct sales force covering hundreds of US metros.

Forensic fingerprint same 11 factors for every stock · 0 unfavorable · 50 neutral · 100 favorable
Underlying Need Persistence do people still need this at all? 93
Paying employees accurately under changing multi-state tax law is a permanent obligation.
The need is legal and recurring, not discretionary; no amount of cheap intelligence removes the requirement to withhold, file and report per jurisdiction.
US employment counts in mid-market · new state and local tax regimes · client count growth · payroll compliance rule changes
relevance 72 · confidence 92
Solution Persistence will they still solve it this way? 68
Buying a unified HCM platform stays the default, but the interface and module bundle may change shape.
Customers will keep buying a single system of record for employee data, yet AI chat and agent front ends can strip value from the module-by-module UI Paycom prices against.
module attach rates per client · PEPM per employee trend · usage shifting to agent interfaces · competitor unbundling of modules
relevance 78 · confidence 68
Intelligence Commoditization does cheap AI power them or copy them? 55
Cheap intelligence powers Paycom's service delivery and simultaneously arms feature copycats.
AI compresses the cost of building HCM functionality, so Paycom's single-database feature advantage erodes faster than its compliance and distribution advantages do.
AI-native HCM entrants moving upmarket · R&D spend per new module · win rates versus Rippling and Gusto · feature parity claims in deal losses
relevance 80 · confidence 66
Responsibility Transfer are they paid to take the blame? 88
Paycom is paid to absorb tax filing and payroll error liability that clients will not hold.
Technically capable internal AI does not solve the ownership question - a mid-market CFO gains nothing by taking multi-jurisdiction filing risk in-house, and cheaper AI makes that asymmetry more visible, not less.
tax notice volume per client · penalty and indemnity disclosures · client retention above 90 percent · regulatory complexity in payroll tax
relevance 88 · confidence 85
Scarcity Migration do their assets get rarer or more common? 71
Software gets abundant; registrations, liability capacity, verified employee records and field distribution get relatively scarcer.
As code cost collapses, the durable assets are the tax agency relationships, the funded-payroll trust, and the direct sales offices covering mid-market metros that AI cannot instantiate.
sales office and rep count · client funds held balances · new logo cost of acquisition · payroll accuracy metrics disclosed
relevance 75 · confidence 70
Customer DIY Preference will customers just build it themselves? 86
Mid-market firms with dozens to a few thousand employees will not internalize payroll compliance.
Paycom's segment lacks the internal engineering and legal capacity to run and defend a self-built payroll engine, and AI does not create the appetite to own that risk.
churn to in-house systems · large client downgrade patterns · internal HR tech hiring at clients · AI payroll build tooling adoption
relevance 70 · confidence 82
AI Intermediation Position do AI agents go through them or around them? 52
Paycom can be the execution layer for HR agents, or be relegated behind an orchestration layer it does not control.
Its closed architecture and historic reluctance on third-party integration cut both ways - it protects the record but makes Paycom a poor node if enterprise agents orchestrate across HR, finance and benefits systems.
public API and agent access roadmap · partner integration announcements · third-party HR orchestration adoption · agent-initiated transaction volume
relevance 66 · confidence 58
Data Leverage does their data make AI better? 58
Large longitudinal payroll and time data is real but legally constrained and hard to monetize as AI advantage.
Employee-level pay, benefits and scheduling history enables anomaly detection and benchmarking, yet privacy and client ownership limits blunt its use as a differentiating training asset.
benchmarking product launches · client data use consent terms · AI feature accuracy claims · fraud and error detection results
relevance 52 · confidence 60
AI Margin Conversion do the AI savings become profit? 76
Service and implementation labor is the main COGS line AI can compress inside an 83% gross margin.
Support, tax notice handling and onboarding are the human costs; automating them lifts gross margin and operating leverage provided pricing is not conceded to win deals.
gross margin above 84 percent · service headcount per 1000 clients · implementation time to go-live · operating margin restored above 33
relevance 85 · confidence 70
Revenue Unit Durability does the thing they charge for survive? 49
Per-employee-per-month billing is directly exposed to AI-driven headcount reduction at clients.
Paycom has already shown automation can shrink its own invoice - Beti removed error-driven reruns and unscheduled payroll fees - and broad mid-market white-collar thinning would deflate the seat base itself.
employees per client trend · PEPM realized versus list · same-store revenue growth · unscheduled payroll fee disclosure
relevance 82 · confidence 62
Entrant Compression how easily can newcomers copy them? 57
Building HCM software gets cheap; achieving compliance-grade filing and mid-market distribution does not.
AI collapses the engineering barrier that once protected feature breadth, leaving Paycom to defend on tax registrations, liability capacity and a physical sales force that AI-native rivals must still buy.
funded HCM startups moving upmarket · competitor pricing pressure in bids · sales efficiency versus prior years · logo losses to newer platforms
relevance 80 · confidence 66

AI Lens thesis

AI reaches Paycom through three doors, not one: it lowers the cost of delivering an already high-margin service (favorable and near-certain), it lowers the cost of building a competing HCM feature set so differentiation must rest on compliance, liability and distribution rather than code (neutral to negative), and it acts on the customer's headcount, which is literally Paycom's billing unit (the underappreciated negative). The underlying need - paying people correctly and legally - is untouchable, and the willingness to outsource the blame is if anything strengthened when AI makes internal systems technically feasible but legally unattractive. Paycom has also already demonstrated it will automate away its own revenue: Beti removed error-driven reruns and unscheduled payroll fees, a real precedent that automation here can shrink the invoice even as it raises client satisfaction.

Thesis breaker Gross margin failing to expand above the mid-80s over the next two years while service headcount per client stays flat would break the cost-leverage half of the thesis; conversely, a mid-market AI-native competitor winning multi-thousand-employee logos on compliance-grade tax filing would break the shield half.
What the market may be underestimating

Upside Implementation is the historic friction in mid-market HCM switching; AI-assisted data migration and configuration can shorten go-live, raise sales rep productivity, and lift close rates without adding sales headcount - a growth reacceleration channel the market reads as a cost story only.

Downside Paycom's closed single-database architecture and thin third-party integration posture, historically a strength, is a liability if enterprise AI agents orchestrate HR actions across systems and route around platforms that do not expose clean programmatic access.

Outcome range spread 49 · unresolved

34Bear case
63Central case
83Bull 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 2026-07-30 18:25:45
Verdict Modestly undervalued at $161 — FCF yield of 5.2% with zero debt and 30% ROIC underprices the franchise; fair value $180-200 if operating margins hold near 30%, contingent on Q2 2026 margin print above 22%.

Looking at the raw quarterly cadence first: Q1 2026 revenue of $571.9M vs Q1 2025's $530.5M is 7.8% YoY — that's actually a deceleration from the 12.3% posted in Q4 2025 ($544.3M vs $493.9M) and well below the 21% run-rate of 2022-2023. Net income of $155.7M in Q1 2026 at a 27.2% margin looks great in isolation, but Paycom has a strong seasonal Q1 (float income, ESPP-related timing); compare full-year 2025 NI of $453.4M vs 2024's $502.0M — earnings actually *declined* 9.7% year-over-year on a full-year basis, even as revenue grew 9%. Operating margin compressed from 33.7% in 2024 to 27.7% in 2025. That's a real deterioration, not noise, and it's what the market is pricing at 20x P/E — not "modest premium," but a discount to Paycom's historical 30-40x multiple.

The synthesis pegs fair value at ~$145 vs $161 current, calling it "fair" with a slight lean overvalued. I partially disagree with the direction of concern. FCF of $408M on a $7.88B market cap is a 5.2% FCF yield with zero debt and $370M cash — for a business still growing high single digits with 83% gross margins and 30% ROIC, that's not expensive, that's cheap on cash flow. The EV/EBITDA of 10.1x is frankly low for a SaaS franchise of this quality. The P/E of 20x reflects the earnings dip, but if operating margins normalize even to 30% (below the 2024 peak), you're looking at ~$500M+ NI on 2026 revenue tracking toward $2.25-2.30B — that's a forward P/E closer to 15-16x.

The contrarian bear case the models underweight: the margin compression from 33.7% to 27.7% happened while revenue grew — meaning opex grew faster than revenue, which is a red flag in mature SaaS. This is either (a) reinvestment for growth reacceleration, (b) competitive spend to defend against Workday/ADP moving downmarket, or (c) structural erosion of the single-database moat. Insider activity is unhelpful — awards and in-kind withholding dominate; the one open-market sale of 2,500 shares is trivial, and the 12,500-share gift is arguably a signal of tax planning at what an insider views as *not a bottom*. The stated "accelerating quarterly trend" in revenue confidence is misleading — Q1 is seasonally strongest; the sequential progression Q2→Q3→Q4 2025 was $483.6M→$493.3M→$544.3M, which is normal seasonal build, not acceleration. The dates on some filings (2026-07-08) look forward-dated, which is suspicious data hygiene worth flagging.

I dissent modestly with the synthesis "fair value" call and lean undervalued. The market narrative layer nails it — this is a trust-in-competence story, not a transformation bet — but the 11% premium the narrative engine cites vs DCF underweights the FCF yield and the reset expectations. My read: at $161 with $408M FCF, zero debt, 30% ROIC, and even 8-10% top-line growth, intrinsic value sits closer to $180-200 if margins stabilize anywhere near 30% operating. The risk is that 2025's margin compression is structural (Workday's midmarket push is real), in which case $140 is fair. The swing factor is the next two quarters of operating margin — specifically whether the Q1 2026 27.2% net margin holds sequentially into Q2/Q3, or whether we see another repeat of 2025's Q2 dip to 18.5%. If Q2 2026 comes in above 22% net margin, the thesis works. If it drops back to 18-19%, the models are right and $145 is generous. Given zero leverage, strong FCF conversion, and a valuation that already prices in the bad news, asymmetry favors longs at these levels — a starter position with adds on any dip to $150 makes sense, but I wouldn't back up the truck until Q2 margins confirm.

GPT Reading
Independent reading · gpt-5.4 · generated 2026-07-30 18:25:58
Verdict Slightly overvalued at $161.58 — solid franchise, but the 2025 earnings reset and sub-10% growth argue fair value closer to $140-$150 unless margin recovery proves durable.

At $161.58, Paycom looks modestly overvalued because the market is paying up for a margin profile that has not actually held steady through the company’s growth slowdown. The core operating story is not broken: revenue rose from $1.06B in 2021 to $2.05B in 2025, a near-doubling in four years, gross margin remains elite at 83.2%, and the balance sheet is clean with no debt and $370M of cash. But the quality of that growth has changed. Annual revenue grew 11.2% in 2025 versus 2024, while operating income fell from $634.3M to $567.2M and net income dropped from $502.0M to $453.4M. That is the key fact pattern here: this is no longer a software company compounding both revenue and earnings together. It is now a slower grower that gave back profitability in the latest full year.

The quarterly numbers sharpen that point. Q1 2026 revenue of $571.9M was up only 7.8% from $530.5M a year earlier, while net income rose 11.7% to $155.7M; that is a decent quarter, but it follows a 2025 in which earnings were under pressure despite top-line gains. The recent run-rate also suggests a company settling into high-single-digit or low-double-digit growth, not something that deserves a premium software multiple by default. On trailing annual figures, investors are paying about 20x earnings, 4.4x sales, and just over 10x EV/EBITDA. Those are not crazy numbers in absolute terms, but for a business growing revenue around 9-10% with recent earnings contraction, they are not obviously cheap either. If anything, the market is already giving Paycom credit for restoring the 2024 margin structure without demanding proof.

What keeps me from being outright bearish is that the underlying business is still better than the most negative interpretation. Free cash flow was $408.0M in 2025 on $678.9M of operating cash flow despite a heavy $270.9M capex burden, and ROIC at 30.5% is excellent. The capex line is unusually high for software, but even after that, FCF margin was about 19.9%, which is still healthy. The company also has room to absorb operational missteps because it carries no leverage. And while annual earnings fell in 2025, the latest quarterly cadence hints that the worst of the margin compression may be passing: Q4 2025 net margin was 20.9% and Q1 2026 improved to 27.2%, ahead of the prior-year quarter’s 26.3%. If that trend continues, today’s multiple would look much more reasonable.

The best argument against my read is straightforward: the stock is not priced like a high-growth SaaS name anymore, and the cash economics may matter more than the 2025 earnings dip. At roughly $7.88B market cap, Paycom trades around 19x trailing net income and about 19.3x trailing FCF, which is a fair-to-attractive range for a debt-free, mission-critical software asset with 80%+ gross margins and recurring revenue characteristics. A smart bull would also note that quarterly revenue has re-accelerated sequentially from $437.5M in Q2 2024 to $571.9M in Q1 2026, and that the “earnings decline” critique relies heavily on one annual step-down after a particularly strong 2024. If 2025 was an investment/reset year rather than the start of structural deterioration, then the present valuation is closer to base case than overvaluation.

What would change my mind is simple: I need to see whether Paycom can convert this latest quarter into a real earnings recovery while sustaining at least ~9-10% revenue growth. If the next few quarters show revenue consistently above $590M-$600M with net margins holding above 24-25%, then the case for a fair value in the high $160s to low $180s strengthens materially. On the other hand, if revenue growth slips into the mid-single digits while annual operating income stays below the 2024 peak of $634.3M, then even 20x earnings is too generous and the stock should trade closer to 15-17x earnings, implying something like $125-$145.

Grok Reading
Independent reading · grok-4.5 · generated 2026-07-30 18:26:38
Verdict High-quality compounder at $162; 10x EV/EBITDA and 5%+ FCF yield undervalue margin recovery—fair value nearer $180-190

Paycom’s numbers describe a high-quality mid-market HCM franchise that has already made the hard transition from 30% growth to a steady high-single-digit/low-teens clip, and is now digesting a deliberate margin reset. Full-year 2025 revenue reached $2.05 B (+9% YoY) while operating income fell to $567 M from $634 M and net income dropped to $453 M from $502 M; the operating margin compression from roughly 34% to 27.7% is the single most important data point in the set. Yet the quarterly sequence shows the trough is behind: Q2–Q3 2025 net margins bottomed in the high-teens before Q1 2026 printed $572 M revenue (+7.8% YoY) at a 27.2% net margin and sequential acceleration. Free-cash-flow generation remains robust at $408 M (20% FCF margin) on $679 M of operating cash flow despite elevated $271 M capex, the balance sheet carries zero debt against $370 M cash, and returns stay elite (ROE 26%, ROIC 30.5%, 83% gross margin). At a 10× EV/EBITDA, ~5.2% FCF yield and a trailing P/E in the high teens on still-depressed 2025 earnings, the market is pricing Paycom as a no-growth utility rather than a sticky, land-and-expand SaaS compounder still expanding mid-market wallet share.

The valuation synthesis that anchors fair value near $145 (10% below the $161.58 print) under-weights both the durability of the single-database architecture and the clear Q1 margin rebound; EV/revenue of 3.7× and P/S of 4.4× are modest for 10% top-line growth that is still compounding FCF at an 18% CAGR. Insider activity is noise (routine awards and one small sale), revenue confidence is high and the trend is labeled accelerating, and the narrative layer correctly notes that almost none of the current multiple is story-driven—investors are simply paying for execution competence.

The strongest counter-argument is straightforward: 2025 proved that revenue growth can decelerate to 9% while earnings decline 10%, exactly the combination that collapses SaaS multiples. A smart skeptic would highlight the still-elevated capex, the thin 1.09 current ratio, the sub-6% ROA that hints at a heavier asset base than pure software peers, and the structural threat from ADP and Workday pushing down-market with modernized suites. If the Q1 2026 margin recovery proves one-off and growth slips into the mid-single digits, the 20× P/E becomes a value trap rather than a trough multiple; the models’ $136–145 composite would then look generous, not conservative. I weigh this less heavily because the multi-year FCF CAGR of 18% and the rapid sequential margin repair already visible in the latest quarter argue the 2025 dip was investment, not structural erosion.

I would flip to a clear overvalued stance if the next two prints show net margins stuck below 22% or trailing twelve-month revenue growth falling under 7%, or if management signals a sustained step-up in competitive discounting. Conversely, two more quarters of 25%+ net margins on ≥9% growth would make the current $162 level look like an obvious entry.

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 6.0; a large Δ marks the dissenting voice, usually the one worth reading.
Claude claude-opus-4-7 8.0
undervalued · conviction 3/5 · Δ +2.0 vs panel · self: 6.0
GPT gpt-5.4 2.0
overvalued · conviction 3/5 · Δ -4.0 vs panel · self: 4.0
Grok grok-4.5 8.0
undervalued · conviction 3/5 · Δ +2.0 vs panel · self: 7.0
Second round ran — the seats disagreed beyond the band (Claude: undervalued · GPT: overvalued · Grok: undervalued); 1 seat changed direction after reading the others.
Claude — Second Response · undervalued revised

VERDICT: Modestly undervalued at $161 — $175-190 fair value if Q2/Q3 2026 net margins hold ≥24% on ≥9% revenue growth; drops to $135-145 if margins revert to 2025's mid-quarter teens.

Grok essentially confirms my read from a different angle, so the interesting tension is with GPT, who lands at $140-150 fair value. GPT's core argument is that I'm giving Paycom credit for a margin recovery that hasn't been proven — that the 2025 print (op margin 27.7% vs 33.7%, NI down 9.7% on revenue up 11.2%) is the actual signal, and Q1 2026's 27.2% net margin is one data point against four quarters of deterioration. That's a fair discipline, and it did make me sharpen my own conditional language. But I don't think it changes the direction of the call, because GPT and I are pricing the *same* asymmetry differently: he's anchoring to trailing earnings at ~20x and asking for proof; I'm anchoring to $408M FCF at a 5.2% yield on a zero-debt, 30% ROIC business and asking what has to go wrong to justify $140. Those are different denominators, and FCF held up in 2025 even as GAAP earnings compressed — that matters.

What GPT gets right and I want to explicitly credit: my "Q2 2026 above 22% net margin" threshold was too loose. His framing — needing ≥24-25% net margins on $590M+ revenue for two consecutive quarters — is the more honest bar, and I'll adopt it. He's also right that the 2025 earnings step-down is not one quarter of noise; it's a full-year reset, and dismissing it as seasonal or investment-driven requires more evidence than I have. But his fair-value math (15-17x earnings on a compressed base) implicitly assumes the compressed base is the new normal, which contradicts the Q1 2026 print he himself acknowledges. You can't cite Q1 2026's 27.2% margin as encouraging and then value the stock on TTM earnings that include the depressed middle quarters of 2025.

Net: I hold undervalued, but I'm tightening the band to $175-190 (from $180-200) and raising the confirmation bar. The FCF yield and balance sheet still carry the argument; GPT's discipline on margin proof is warranted but doesn't overturn it.

GPT — Second Response · fairly valued changed direction

VERDICT: Roughly fairly valued at $161.58, with fair range about $150-$170 today; upside to $180+ needs confirmed margin recovery beyond Q1 seasonality.

Claude’s push on valuation did move me somewhat: a debt-free software asset with 83% gross margins, 30% ROIC, and a 5.2% FCF yield is not easy to call plainly expensive. I also think both colleagues are right that I may have underweighted how much “bad news” is already embedded in a ~20x trough-ish earnings multiple and ~10x EV/EBITDA. Where I still resist the bullish turn is on what exactly that cash flow is buying you. Paycom is not being valued on a depressed gross margin or balance-sheet problem; it is being asked to re-prove operating discipline after a year in which revenue rose 9% and operating income fell 11%. That is not a trivial wobble for a company no longer growing fast enough to outrun cost mistakes. Grok’s “trough is behind” framing leans heavily on one Q1 print, and Claude’s own caution on seasonality undercuts using Q1 as confirmation that normalization is underway.

What failed to move me is the idea that 10x EV/EBITDA or a 5% FCF yield is automatically cheap for this specific setup. FCF is healthy, but capex is also unusually heavy for software, and the 2025 margin reset may reflect more than temporary reinvestment. Claude’s competitive-spend possibility is actually the strongest bear argument in the packet: if opex must stay elevated to defend the mid-market against ADP/Workday, then 2024 margins were the exception, not the baseline. I do revise modestly away from “overvalued” as a directional call because the downside from $161 looks less compelling once I give proper credit to cash generation and zero leverage. But I am not ready to underwrite $180-200 without at least another quarter or two showing that margins can hold above roughly 24-25% outside the favorable Q1 seasonal profile. So I move from slight overvaluation to essentially fair, with a cautious bias.

Grok — Second Response · undervalued held

VERDICT: High-quality compounder undervalued at $162; fair value $180-195 if margins stabilize near 28%+

Claude’s emphasis on Q1 seasonality and the true full-year 2025 earnings decline (NI –9.7% even as revenue rose) correctly flags that I overstated “sequential acceleration.” The Q2–Q4 2025 build was ordinary seasonality, not a re-acceleration signal, and the opex-outpacing-revenue dynamic is a legitimate red flag that could reflect competitive defense rather than pure reinvestment. That data point modestly lowers my near-term confidence. GPT’s core claim—that the market is already paying for an unproven margin restoration and that 9–10% growth plus an earnings reset justifies only $140–150—does not survive the cash numbers: 5.2% FCF yield, zero debt, 30% ROIC and 20% FCF margins remain elite for a sticky mid-market franchise, and the Q1 27.2% net margin print (even if seasonal) sits well above the 2025 trough. Those facts keep the 10× EV/EBITDA multiple looking like a trough discount, not a premium.

I therefore hold the undervalued call. The swing factor both colleagues correctly isolate—whether Q2/Q3 2026 net margins stay above ~22–24%—is unchanged; two confirming quarters would push fair value firmly into the high $180s. Until then the asymmetry still favors the long side at $162 because the balance sheet and FCF conversion already price in the bad case.

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 · 2026-08-10 19:48:10
Delvantic - Cairn AI
Quality - wait for a dip into the $130s 7/10
Paycom is a genuinely strong compounder trading roughly 15% above deserved value with fading growth and no narrative tailwind - a wait-for-price name, not a buy-here name.
The cruxWhether the 2025 operating margin give-back (33.7% to 27.6%) reverses in the next two prints, or whether it signals the terminal multiple needs to compress on a business now growing 9%.
Forensic checks Derived mechanically from PAYC's filed financials — not from the AI lenses
Liquidity & RunwaySelf-Funding
DilutionShare Count Shrinking
Earnings QualityHigh Earnings Quality
The four lensesswitch a tab for its full read — score + evidence
Company Quality
+58
Strong
edge √Σ 143 · risk √Σ 77 · conf 8/10

Paycom compounded revenue from 1.06B in 2021 to 2.05B in 2025 (roughly 18% CAGR) at gross margins consistently above 82%. FCF has climbed every year from 199M to 408M, and OCF/NI of 1.38x with accruals at -2.6% of assets signals real cash-backed earnings — the Beneish M of -2.59 corroborates no manipulation flags. The balance sheet holds 370M net cash with no reliance on external capital. Capital allocation is shareholder-friendly for a software firm: diluted shares fell from 58.2M to 56.1M (-0.9% CAGR), and buybacks ran 1.79x SBC, so 5.8% SBC-to-revenue is being more than offset. Insider tape is neutral - awards and tax-withholding dominate, with only one modest 351K open-market sale and a 12.5K share gift from founder Richison; nothing screaming. The soft spots: revenue growth decelerated from ~30% in 2022 to ~9% in 2025, and operating margin gave back meaningful ground in 2025 (33.7% to 27.6%) despite net income staying high (453M vs 502M prior). GM also drifted from 84.7% to 83.2%. That combination - slower top line plus margin give-back - is the main reason this is Strong rather than Fortress.

Strengths 4
m78
Cash-backed earnings
OCF/NI 1.38x, accruals -2.6% of assets, Beneish M -2.59 - reported profits convert to cash cleanly with no mechanical red flags.
m72
Per-share value protected
Diluted share count fell from 58.2M (2021) to 56.1M (2025) while SBC at 5.8% of revenue was more than offset by buybacks at 1.79x SBC.
m70
Structurally high margins
Gross margin held 82-85% across five years and operating margin averaged mid-to-high 20s, consistent with a durable SaaS-like economic profile.
m65
Self-funding with net cash
370M cash, zero net debt, and 408M annual FCF means the business needs no capital markets access to operate or invest.
Concerns 3
m55
Growth deceleration
Revenue growth stepped down from ~30% in 2022 to ~22% in 2023, ~11% in 2024, and ~9% in 2025 - the compounding rate has more than halved.
m48
2025 operating margin reversal
Operating margin dropped from 33.7% in 2024 to 27.6% in 2025 and net income fell from 502M to 453M despite higher revenue - worth understanding whether this is reinvestment or pressure.
m25
Altman Z in grey zone
Z-score of 1.81 sits in the grey band; not alarming for a cash-rich software firm but worth noting alongside the margin softening.
This is a genuinely well-run software business - fat gross margins, real cash conversion, no debt, and actually retiring shares rather than diluting. The forensics are clean. My hesitation is that the growth story is fading faster than the margin story is holding: 9% growth with a 600bp operating margin give-back in 2025 is the profile of a company whose end-market or execution edge is under pressure, not a business hitting a new gear. Strong, not Fortress, and I want to see what happened in 2025 margins before going higher.
Verify before trusting this (5)
  • What drove the 2025 operating margin drop from 33.7% to 27.6% - reinvestment, sales productivity, or a one-timer
  • Whether the revenue deceleration reflects saturation in mid-market HCM or competitive share loss (Rippling, ADP Run, Gusto)
  • Customer retention and net revenue retention disclosures in the 10-K
  • Details of any legal or CEO-related governance items given prior Beti-related sales execution issues
  • Composition of the 71.8K share award to founder Richison in Feb 2026 and vesting terms
Valuation / Mispricing
-55
Rich
edge √Σ 32 · risk √Σ 94 · conf 7/10
Price $161.49 vs deserved ~$140 midpoint - roughly 13-15% overpriced; no margin of safety. attractive below $130.00

The e2e composite pegs deserved value at $136.68, signal-adjusted to $145.15 - both below the $161.49 quote, implying roughly 10% downside rather than upside. The DCF ($128) and EPV floor ($89) both sit meaningfully under price; only the anchored-PE method ($201) argues for cheapness, and that method is essentially capitalizing a peak multiple onto decelerating earnings - I discount it. Strip the outlier and the honest deserved range is ~$115-145, with $161 sitting at or above the top end.

Cheap signals 2
m25
Anchored PE suggests upside
Anchored-PE FV $201 flags potential re-rating if growth reaccelerates, but capitalizing prior multiples onto a slowing business is exactly the method to distrust here.
m20
Clean earnings raise deserved value modestly
High earnings quality and buybacks (not dilution) mean no haircut is warranted - deserved value sits at the top of the method range, but still below $161.
Rich / priced-in 3
m62
Price above composite fair value
Composite FV $136.68 and signal-adjusted $145.15 both sit below $161.49, giving -10% upside on the synthesis print.
m55
DCF and EPV both under price
DCF $128 and EPV floor $89 anchor the low end; two of three methods say the cash-generation math does not support $161.
m45
Growth deceleration not in the multiple
9% revenue growth with a 600bp op-margin give-back in 2025 argues the multiple should compress, not expand - yet price sits at a premium to deserved value.
This is a good business at a full price. The composite says $137-145 deserved, the stock is $161, and the only method arguing for upside is the one that assumes the old multiple regime survives a growth slowdown - I do not believe that. I would need it in the low $130s before I get interested; at $161 there is no margin of safety and the setup is asymmetric to the downside if growth stays at 9%.
Verify before trusting this (4)
  • FY26 revenue guide and whether growth stabilizes above 10%
  • operating margin trajectory - is the 2025 dip one-time reinvestment or structural?
  • net revenue retention and any disclosure on competitive losses to Workday/ADP
  • buyback pace vs SBC to confirm real per-share value creation
General Sentiment
-17
Balanced
tail √Σ 52 · head √Σ 69 · conf 6/10

The macro tape is mildly hostile: VIX at 20.7, S&P off nearly 4% from highs, 10y at 4.61%, and market PE stretched at 26.2. That is a risk-off backdrop that typically punishes story stocks first. PAYC, with a 0.8 beta and a 'steady-compounder' archetype (minimal intensity, durable, low cult), is exactly the kind of name that tends to underperform less in stress but also gets no bid from AI-narrative flows. Recent news flow flagged PAYC catching a lift from a Treasury-yield drop and enterprise-software risk-on rotation, but that is a weak, market-driven pulse, not a story of its own. The narrative gap is the key sentiment fact: there is no AI angle, no M&A hype, no cult following - just trust in execution. In a tape where the market is chasing AI beneficiaries and punishing anything with a growth-slowdown whiff, a boring HCM compounder faces stiffer downmarket competition narrative (Workday, ADP) without a re-rating hook. Analyst-adjacent tone is mixed to negative (a '3 Reasons to Sell PAYC' piece circulating), and the stock has tracked the market rather than led. Net: modest macro headwind, muted by low beta; narrative headwind from being a no-story name in a story-driven tape; offset by boring-is-good defensive appeal in a stress regime. Roughly balanced.

Tailwinds 3
m35
Defensive profile in a stress regime
Low beta, durable FCF, and low volatility of revenue growth make PAYC a relative safe harbor if the tape stays stressed - the kind of name that outperforms on down days.
m30
Enterprise-software risk-on bid on yield drops
Recent session showed PAYC lifting with software peers when Treasury yields dropped; a durable rate-relief move would help this cohort broadly.
m25
Solid price momentum vs market
10.1% CAGR trend and 8.7% six-month return (vs S&P 6.3%) suggest quiet accumulation rather than distribution, despite the lack of story.
Headwinds 4
m35
Risk-off tape, muted by low beta
VIX in top percentile and S&P -3.9% off highs pressure equities, but PAYC's 0.8 beta and steady-FCF profile mean the tape lands with less force here than on higher-beta software peers.
m45
No narrative spark in a narrative-driven market
Minimal-intensity, low-cult 'steady compounder' has no AI, M&A, or expansion story to attract flows while the tape rewards narrative. Fundamentals-only stocks tend to drift, not lead.
m30
Bearish analyst-adjacent commentary
A '3 Reasons to Sell PAYC' piece and framing that shares merely track the S&P reinforce a 'why own this' problem - tone is uninspired, not hostile, but not supportive.
m25
Downmarket competition narrative
Bear story that Workday and ADP are pushing into mid-market HCM is a slow-burn overhang on multiple, though not currently a hot news item.
This is a genuinely balanced sentiment setup. The stress tape is a headwind but a soft one for a 0.8-beta compounder, and PAYC's lack of any narrative hook means it neither catches AI flows nor gets crushed by AI-cycle worries. Analyst tone leans mildly negative and the competitive-encroachment story is a slow overhang, but the defensive profile and quiet outperformance offset that. Net pressure is close to neutral with a slight headwind lean - this stock's tape will be driven more by its own execution than by the current macro or narrative crosswinds.
Verify before trusting this (4)
  • Whether the AI-capex-cycle concern deepens (helps defensive software, hurts hyperscaler-linked names)
  • Any shift in analyst tone or target revisions after next print
  • Signs of Workday/ADP win-rate pressure in mid-market becoming a live story
  • 10y yield direction - a sustained drop below 4.4% would broadly bid software
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
+38
Favorable - the compliance shield holds, but the billing unit is the soft spot
opp √Σ 121 · thr √Σ 0 · conf 7/10

AI reaches Paycom through three doors, not one: it lowers the cost of delivering an already high-margin service (favorable and near-certain), it lowers the cost of building a competing HCM feature set so differentiation must rest on compliance, liability and distribution rather than code (neutral to negative), and it acts on the customer's headcount, which is literally Paycom's billing unit (the underappreciated negative). The underlying need - paying people correctly and legally - is untouchable, and the willingness to outsource the blame is if anything strengthened when AI makes internal systems technically feasible but legally unattractive. Paycom has also already demonstrated it will automate away its own revenue: Beti removed error-driven reruns and unscheduled payroll fees, a real precedent that automation here can shrink the invoice even as it raises client satisfaction.

AI opportunities 6
m62
Underlying Need Persistence
Paying employees accurately under changing multi-state tax law is a permanent obligation.
m28
Solution Persistence
Buying a unified HCM platform stays the default, but the interface and module bundle may change shape.
m67
Responsibility Transfer
Paycom is paid to absorb tax filing and payroll error liability that clients will not hold.
m32
Scarcity Migration
Software gets abundant; registrations, liability capacity, verified employee records and field distribution get relatively scarcer.
m50
Customer DIY Preference
Mid-market firms with dozens to a few thousand employees will not internalize payroll compliance.
m44
AI Margin Conversion
Service and implementation labor is the main COGS line AI can compress inside an 83% gross margin.
AI threats 0

None surfaced.

The compliance shield genuinely holds, so the AI question here is not survival but whether margin expansion outruns the slow deflation of the per-employee billing unit. Structurally favorable at 64 with wide-ish range 34 to 83: AI attacks Paycom's cost base far more than its reason for existing, and no mid-market CFO will internalize payroll tax liability regardless of how cheap software gets. The kill switch is the revenue unit - scored 49 on relevance 82 - because PEPM tracks client headcount and Paycom has already proven it will automate away its own fees. Watch two lines together before consensus does: gross margin pushing above 84 percent, and revenue per client employee; margin up with PEPM flat is the bull case, margin up with PEPM sliding means the savings are being handed to customers and to AI-armed downmarket rivals.
Verify before trusting this (8)
  • tax notice volume per client
  • penalty and indemnity disclosures
  • client retention above 90 percent
  • regulatory complexity in payroll tax
  • gross margin above 84 percent
  • service headcount per 1000 clients
  • implementation time to go-live
  • operating margin restored above 33
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 -11.3% v0.6.0 View full prediction →

When we made this prediction on Aug 1, 2026, PAYC was $163.96. We expect it to be $145.50 by Feb 2027, and we consider it great value under $130.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Aug 1, 2026.

Price when predicted$163.96
Our estimate for Feb 2027$145.50-11.3%
Great value below$130.00
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 PAYC. 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