Compare StocksCTAS vs MS

Cintas Corporation (CTAS) vs Morgan Stanley (MS): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-09-17, CTAS is overvalued at $197, with a DCF intrinsic value of $134 and a margin of safety of -47%. MS is undervalued at $201, with an intrinsic value of $303 and a margin of safety of 34%. Of the two, MS has the wider margin of safety.

CTAS
Cintas Corporation
$196.69
VS
MS
Morgan Stanley
$201.39

Rewards

CTAS
  • Cintas Corporation has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • Cintas Corporation scores 98/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with roic consistency as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • Free cash flow has grown at a 14.4% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
MS
  • Gross margin of 87.6% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • Morgan Stanley scores 80/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with revenue predictability as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • Each dollar of retained earnings has created $3.56 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.

Risks

CTAS
  • FCF yield of 1.9% is below 3%, meaning the market is pricing in substantial future growth to justify the current price.
  • PEG ratio of 3.19 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
  • Insiders have sold $2.7M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.
MS
  • Altman Z-Score of 0.29 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
  • Insiders have sold $5.4M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
CTAS
MS
Valuation
$1.46B
Free Cash Flow
N/A
1.86%
FCF Yield
N/A
40.06
Trailing P/E
16.25
32.16
Forward P/E
14.76
Quality & Moat
26.87%
ROIC
3.53%
40.71%
ROE
17.97%
50.67%
Gross Margin
87.64%
3.19
PEG Ratio
1.82
Balance Sheet Safety
0.47
Net Debt / Equity
Net cash
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
0.81
Net Debt / EBITDA
N/A
1.04%
Dividend Yield
2.27%
CTAS: 2Ties: 1MS: 6
CTASMS

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
CTAS

Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

MS

Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

$1 Retained Earnings Test

Learn more →
CTAS
$4.91
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$3.54B
Δ Market Cap
+$17.39B
Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer
MS
$6.65
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$20.84B
Δ Market Cap
+$138.59B
Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer

Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer

Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis

Learn more →
CTAS
46.5% Overvalued
Price is 46.5% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $196.69
Fair Value: $134.24
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
MS
33.6% Margin of Safety
Price is 33.6% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $201.39
Fair Value: $303.09
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
CTAS

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $197?

+16.5%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +21.6%

The market implies +16.5% Owner Earnings growth, roughly in line with history — reasonably priced.

Standard FCF implies +21.6%, reflecting ongoing growth investment.

MS

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
CTAS
98/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat with strength across all dimensions. ROIC Consistency is the standout factor.

Composite score measuring competitive advantage durability across four dimensions: returns above cost of capital, pricing power stability, revenue predictability, and capital efficiency. Based on 4 years of fundamental data.
MS
80/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat driven primarily by revenue predictability. Margin Stability is the area most vulnerable to competitive pressure.

Composite score measuring competitive advantage durability across four dimensions: returns above cost of capital, pricing power stability, revenue predictability, and capital efficiency. Based on 4 years of fundamental data.

Forensic Accounting

Learn more →
CTAS
-2.52
Unlikely Manipulator
Above -1.78 = likely manipulator · -2.22 to -1.78 = grey zone

M-Score Trend

Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.
MS
-2.09
Possible Manipulator
Above -1.78 = likely manipulator · -2.22 to -1.78 = grey zone

M-Score Trend

Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.

Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.

Ownership Breakdown

Learn more →
CTAS
Insiders 15.0%Institutions 69.7%Retail & Other 15.3%
No. of Institutional Holders1,978
High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders — a key signal in Buffett-style analysis. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.
MS
Insiders 24.4%Institutions 63.2%Retail & Other 12.4%
No. of Institutional Holders3,488
High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders — a key signal in Buffett-style analysis. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.

High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.

Insider Buying Activity

Learn more →
CTAS
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
MUCCI MARTIN
Director
$267,060
@ $222.55 · 2025-07-21
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
MS
0
Buys (3M)
1
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $5,630
PETERSON DOUGLAS L
Director
$5,630
@ $156.39 · 2025-10-17
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises

Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises.

Insider Selling Activity

Learn more →
CTAS
2
Sells (3M)
3
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $3.56M
TYSOE RONALD WILLIAM
Director
$872,164
@ $199.90 · 2026-07-22
BARSTAD MELANIE W
Director
$1.86M
@ $202.94 · 2026-07-16
TYSOE RONALD WILLIAM
Director
$834,607
@ $178.87 · 2026-04-20
TYSOE RONALD WILLIAM
Director
$1.14M
@ $223.47 · 2025-07-30
SCHNEIDER TODD M
Chief Executive Officer
$3.82M
@ $220.90 · 2025-07-28
TYSOE RONALD WILLIAM
Director
$1.78M
@ $208.96 · 2025-04-14
ROZAKIS JAMES
Chief Operating Officer
$380,740
@ $190.37 · 2025-04-07
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
MS
2
Sells (3M)
14
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $64.71M
SCHAPIRO MARY L
Director
$212,055
@ $212.06 · 2026-07-28
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$5.21M
@ $215.55 · 2026-07-17
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$2.12M
@ $190.75 · 2026-04-20
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$2.78M
@ $189.24 · 2026-04-17
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$9.74M
@ $188.59 · 2026-04-16
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$3.04M
@ $188.22 · 2026-04-16
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$6.02M
@ $182.61 · 2026-01-30
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$3.69M
@ $184.55 · 2026-01-20
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$5.57M
@ $183.62 · 2026-01-20
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$3.97M
@ $184.00 · 2026-01-20
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$1.44M
@ $183.45 · 2026-01-20
YESHAYA SHARON
Chief Financial Officer
$2.94M
@ $185.77 · 2026-01-20
SMITH CHARLES AUBREY III
Officer
$1.55M
@ $182.08 · 2026-01-20
PICK EDWARD N.
Chief Executive Officer
$16.43M
@ $164.34 · 2025-10-31
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$2.53M
@ $140.62 · 2025-07-17
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$4.09M
@ $141.13 · 2025-07-17
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.69M
@ $141.12 · 2025-07-17
SMITH CHARLES AUBREY III
Officer
$2.81M
@ $140.30 · 2025-07-17
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$3.70M
@ $127.37 · 2025-05-12
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$4.80M
@ $120.00 · 2025-05-02
HERZ ROBERT H
Director
$95,459
@ $119.32 · 2025-05-02
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.12M
@ $111.65 · 2025-04-15
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$1.15M
@ $138.06 · 2025-01-22
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$2.52M
@ $136.92 · 2025-01-21
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$4.20M
@ $136.43 · 2025-01-21
AKRAM RAJA
Chief Financial Officer
$2.38M
@ $136.01 · 2025-01-21
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$5.00M
@ $136.61 · 2025-01-21
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.78M
@ $136.20 · 2025-01-21
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives

Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives.

🎭 Mr. Market's Mood

Learn more →
CTAS
FearGreed
😐Neutral(52/100)

"Market is pricing this stock without strong emotion in either direction"

Composite sentiment score based on 6 market signals. Inspired by Buffett's "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.
MS
FearGreed
😐Neutral(51/100)

"Market is pricing this stock without strong emotion in either direction"

Composite sentiment score based on 6 market signals. Inspired by Buffett's "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.

Composite sentiment score based on market signals. Inspired by Buffett’s "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.

⚖️ Buffett Signal

Learn more →
CTAS
Awaiting DCF Data

The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.

DCF Margin of Safety: N/AMr. Market's Mood: Neutral (52)
MS
Awaiting DCF Data

The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.

DCF Margin of Safety: N/AMr. Market's Mood: Neutral (51)
View CTAS Full AnalysisView MS Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: CTAS vs MS

Is Cintas Corporation or Morgan Stanley more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, MS trades at a 33.6% margin of safety (intrinsic value $303 vs. price $201), compared to CTAS's -46.5% margin of safety (intrinsic $134 vs. $197).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Cintas Corporation or Morgan Stanley?

CTAS scores 98/100 (Wide moat), while MS scores 80/100 (Wide moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Morgan Stanley in financial distress?

MS's Altman Z-Score of 0.3 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. CTAS scores 12.5 (Safe zone). The Altman Z-Score is a five-factor model that predicts insolvency within two years; scores below 1.81 indicate significant distress.

Which stock has higher return on invested capital, Cintas Corporation or Morgan Stanley?

CTAS earns 26.9% ROIC versus MS's 3.5%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.

Which dividend is safer, Cintas Corporation's or Morgan Stanley's?

CTAS's dividend earns a safety score of 94/100 (Very Safe), compared to MS's 79/100 (Safe). CTAS has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.