Compare price, profitability, solvency, and SEC-reported financials side by side—before deciding which assumptions deserve a closer look.
Decision snapshot: CTAS stock price vs PYPL: inconclusive Relative valuation is incomplete for this pair. Review the available filing metrics before drawing a conclusion.
Quick read
Each company valued on the other's multiple, then compared with the market price.
Implied fair value · at PYPL's multiple
Needs PYPL P/E.
Implied fair value · at CTAS's multiple
Needs CTAS P/E.
Price unavailable
Metric by metric
Where each company leads, and how wide the gap is.
Growth edge
Reported gross margin
Operating income + D&A
Lower is better
Not comparable
Lower leverage
Statements
Annual statements in reported currencies, with calculations and source evidence.
Values retain reported currencies and share bases. Select a figure to inspect its period, calculation and filing inputs. Differences require compatible units and periods.
Explore enterprise value and market valuation multiples in the valuation sections.
Trendline
Nine period-end years of reported revenue, earnings, and margins. Periods and currencies are shown with the data.
Price framework
USD market cap plus reported borrowing debt, less cash and equivalents. This EV proxy excludes investments, preferred stock and noncontrolling-interest adjustments.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Price framework
The same filing-backed model used on each company's valuation page, with company-specific inputs and calculated scenarios.
Cintas Corporation · implied price per share
Debt and bridge-cash inputs are required to translate enterprise value into equity value.
PayPal Holdings, Inc. · implied price per share
Debt and bridge-cash inputs are required to translate enterprise value into equity value.
Balance sheet health
Inspect reported liquidity and leverage alongside historical financial-health checks.
Financial strength on a 0–9 scale.
Bankruptcy-risk signal from balance sheet and earnings power.
Not enough data to score either balance sheet.
Cash excludes investments. EBITDA is an operating-income-plus-D&A proxy. Missing borrowing categories remain unavailable; select a value to inspect its inputs.
Comparable set
Where the pair sits against the wider comparable set.
Keep comparing
Open adjacent comparisons from the same industry to pressure-test the read across multiple pairs.
UNIFIRST CORP
CTAS vs UNF
ABM INDUSTRIES INC /DE/
CTAS vs ABM
Aramark
CTAS vs ARMK
W.W. GRAINGER, INC.
CTAS vs GWW
INTUIT INC.
CTAS vs INTU
IRON MOUNTAIN INC
CTAS vs IRM
VISA INC.
CTAS vs V
Mastercard Inc
CTAS vs MA
Block, Inc.
CTAS vs XYZ
AMERICAN EXPRESS CO
CTAS vs AXP
MARKETAXESS HOLDINGS INC
CTAS vs MKTX
FACTSET RESEARCH SYSTEMS INC
CTAS vs FDS
LLM-powered synthesis
An explanation of the financial evidence. Check its snapshot date against the figures above.
This explanation uses an earlier data snapshot or evidence version. Review its generation date and the current figures, or refresh after signing in.
If you believe CTAS can continue compounding at 7.7% revenue growth with 32.4% ROIC and sustain its premium margins, then avoid extrapolating PYPL P/E gap mechanically because the market is already paying for quality; otherwise, the valuation data argues for caution or profit-taking given the -77.3% PYPL-implied downside.
CTAS trades at a large premium to PYPL across valuation measures, with a 46.5x P/E versus 10.6x for PYPL and a 7.9x P/S versus 1.5x. The valuation model implies $46.53 for CTAS, or -77.3% downside from the current $204.63 price, though CTAS still sits within its historical band.
Supporting Metrics
