REIT - Specialty
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
CXW vs CTAS vs ABM vs G vs KELYA
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Business Services
Specialty Business Services
Information Technology Services
Staffing & Employment Services
CXW vs CTAS vs ABM vs G vs KELYA — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | REIT - Specialty | Specialty Business Services | Specialty Business Services | Information Technology Services | Staffing & Employment Services |
| Market Cap | $2.16B | $68.52B | $2.39B | $5.85B | $349M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $2.34B | $10.79B | $8.87B | $5.16B | $3.09B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $129M | $1.90B | $158M | $570M | $-266M |
| Gross Margin | 23.6% | 50.2% | 11.5% | 36.3% | 26.3% |
| Operating Margin | 14.7% | 23.0% | 3.7% | 14.9% | -2.8% |
| Forward P/E | 14.4x | 34.8x | 10.3x | 8.6x | 11.0x |
| Total Debt | $1.22B | $2.65B | $1.69B | $1.76B | $159M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $112M | $264M | $104M | $854M | $33M |
CXW vs CTAS vs ABM vs G vs KELYA — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| CoreCivic, Inc. (CXW) | 100 | 181.3 | +81.3% |
| Cintas Corporation (CTAS) | 100 | 274.3 | +174.3% |
| ABM Industries Inco… (ABM) | 100 | 132.6 | +32.6% |
| Genpact Limited (G) | 100 | 95.9 | -4.1% |
| Kelly Services, Inc. (KELYA) | 100 | 64.7 | -35.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CXW vs CTAS vs ABM vs G vs KELYA
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CXW is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 12.7%, EPS growth 74.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 6.2%
- 12.7% FFO/revenue growth vs KELYA's -1.9%
- -3.5% vs G's -29.0%
CTAS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 6.9% 10Y total return vs ABM's 48.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.51, Low D/E 56.7%, current ratio 2.09x
- Beta 0.51, yield 0.9%, current ratio 2.09x
- 17.6% margin vs KELYA's -8.6%
ABM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability and valuation efficiency.
- Dividend streak 36 yrs, beta 0.72, yield 2.6%
- PEG 0.04 vs CTAS's 2.08
- Lower P/E (10.3x vs 34.8x), PEG 0.04 vs 2.08
Among these 5 stocks, G doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
KELYA is the clearest fit if your priority is dividends.
- 3.2% yield, 5-year raise streak, vs ABM's 2.6%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 12.7% FFO/revenue growth vs KELYA's -1.9% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (10.3x vs 34.8x), PEG 0.04 vs 2.08 | |
| Quality / Margins | 17.6% margin vs KELYA's -8.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.51 vs KELYA's 1.01 | |
| Dividends | 3.2% yield, 5-year raise streak, vs ABM's 2.6%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | -3.5% vs G's -29.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 18.7% ROA vs KELYA's -11.3%, ROIC 25.8% vs -4.0% |
CXW vs CTAS vs ABM vs G vs KELYA — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
CXW vs CTAS vs ABM vs G vs KELYA — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CTAS leads in 2 of 6 categories
KELYA leads 1 • CXW leads 1 • ABM leads 0 • G leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CTAS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CTAS is the larger business by revenue, generating $10.8B annually — 4.6x CXW's $2.3B. CTAS is the more profitable business, keeping 17.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to KELYA's -8.6%. On growth, CXW holds the edge at +25.8% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $2.3B | $10.8B | $8.9B | $5.2B | $3.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $475M | $2.9B | $431M | $819M | -$54M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $129M | $1.9B | $158M | $570M | -$266M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $49M | $1.8B | $327M | $666M | $66M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +23.6% | +50.2% | +11.5% | +36.3% | +26.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +14.7% | +23.0% | +3.7% | +14.9% | -2.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +5.5% | +17.6% | +1.8% | +11.0% | -8.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +2.1% | +16.5% | +3.7% | +12.9% | +2.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +25.8% | +9.3% | +6.1% | +6.7% | -100.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +56.5% | +11.0% | -7.2% | +17.8% | -2.1% |
Valuation Metrics
KELYA leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 11.0x trailing earnings, G trades at a 71% valuation discount to CTAS's 38.6x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), ABM offers better value at 0.05x vs CTAS's 2.31x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2.2B | $68.5B | $2.4B | $5.9B | $349M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.3B | $70.9B | $4.0B | $6.8B | $475M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 20.19x | 38.65x | 15.74x | 11.02x | -1.34x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 14.44x | 34.75x | 10.30x | 8.58x | 10.96x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 1.06x | 2.31x | 0.05x | 0.74x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 6.83x | 24.85x | 9.23x | 7.91x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.98x | 6.63x | 0.27x | 1.15x | 0.08x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.67x | 14.89x | 1.43x | 2.39x | 0.35x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 39.96x | 39.00x | 15.40x | 7.97x | 3.06x |
Profitability & Efficiency
CTAS leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CTAS delivers a 42.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $43 in annual profit, vs $-25 for KELYA. KELYA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.16x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to ABM's 0.95x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CTAS scores 9/9 vs KELYA's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +9.0% | +42.6% | +8.8% | +22.4% | -24.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +4.0% | +18.7% | +3.0% | +10.3% | -11.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +10.7% | +25.8% | +7.5% | +17.2% | -4.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +12.6% | +29.8% | +8.2% | +18.4% | -4.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.87x | 0.57x | 0.95x | 0.69x | 0.16x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.1B | $2.4B | $1.6B | $911M | $126M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $112M | $264M | $104M | $854M | $33M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.2B | $2.7B | $1.7B | $1.8B | $159M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 3.53x | 24.61x | 3.25x | 16.55x | -12.07x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CXW leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CXW five years ago would be worth $26,794 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $4,168 for KELYA. Over the past 12 months, CXW leads with a -3.5% total return vs G's -29.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CXW at 33.0% vs KELYA's -13.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +14.7% | -7.8% | -3.1% | -24.5% | +13.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -3.5% | -20.1% | -16.0% | -29.0% | -12.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +135.0% | +51.7% | +3.4% | -7.4% | -34.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +167.9% | +95.8% | -14.1% | -20.8% | -58.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -13.4% | +685.0% | +48.7% | +42.5% | -33.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +33.0% | +14.9% | +1.1% | -2.5% | -13.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CXW and CTAS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CTAS is the less volatile stock with a 0.51 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than KELYA's 1.01 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CXW currently trades 92.7% from its 52-week high vs KELYA's 64.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.61x | 0.51x | 0.72x | 0.67x | 1.01x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $23.54 | $229.24 | $52.94 | $50.24 | $14.94 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $15.74 | $165.46 | $36.96 | $33.12 | $7.98 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +92.7% | +74.2% | +77.0% | +68.6% | +64.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 60.3 | 37.7 | 54.8 | 35.4 | 63.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 993K | 2.2M | 512K | 2.3M | 361K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — ABM and KELYA each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CXW as "Buy", CTAS as "Hold", ABM as "Hold", G as "Hold", KELYA as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 54.6% upside for KELYA (target: $15) vs -28.9% for CXW (target: $16). For income investors, KELYA offers the higher dividend yield at 3.23% vs CTAS's 0.88%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $15.50 | $223.40 | $50.00 | $46.00 | $15.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 12 | 30 | 11 | 39 | 5 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.0% | +0.9% | +2.6% | +1.9% | +3.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 3 | 36 | 8 | 5 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.00 | $1.49 | $1.05 | $0.67 | $0.31 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +10.6% | +1.4% | +5.1% | +4.8% | +3.5% |
CTAS leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). KELYA leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
CXW vs CTAS vs ABM vs G vs KELYA: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CXW or CTAS or ABM or G or KELYA a better buy right now?
For growth investors, CoreCivic, Inc.
(CXW) is the stronger pick with 12. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 9% for Kelly Services, Inc. (KELYA). Genpact Limited (G) offers the better valuation at 11. 0x trailing P/E (8. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate CoreCivic, Inc. (CXW) a "Buy" — based on 12 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — CXW or CTAS or ABM or G or KELYA?
On trailing P/E, Genpact Limited (G) is the cheapest at 11.
0x versus Cintas Corporation at 38. 6x. On forward P/E, Genpact Limited is actually cheaper at 8. 6x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: ABM Industries Incorporated wins at 0. 04x versus Cintas Corporation's 2. 08x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CXW or CTAS or ABM or G or KELYA?
Over the past 5 years, CoreCivic, Inc.
(CXW) delivered a total return of +167. 9%, compared to -58. 3% for Kelly Services, Inc. (KELYA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CTAS returned +685. 0% versus KELYA's -33. 0%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — CXW or CTAS or ABM or G or KELYA?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Cintas Corporation (CTAS) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
51β versus Kelly Services, Inc. 's 1. 01β — meaning KELYA is approximately 99% more volatile than CTAS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Kelly Services, Inc. (KELYA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 16% versus 95% for ABM Industries Incorporated — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CXW or CTAS or ABM or G or KELYA?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), CoreCivic, Inc.
(CXW) is pulling ahead at 12. 7% versus -1. 9% for Kelly Services, Inc. (KELYA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: ABM Industries Incorporated grew EPS 102. 3% year-over-year, compared to -427. 4% for Kelly Services, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CTAS leads at 9. 6% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — CXW or CTAS or ABM or G or KELYA?
Cintas Corporation (CTAS) is the more profitable company, earning 17.
5% net margin versus -6. 0% for Kelly Services, Inc. — meaning it keeps 17. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CTAS leads at 22. 8% versus -1. 6% for KELYA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CTAS leads at 50. 0%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is CXW or CTAS or ABM or G or KELYA more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, ABM Industries Incorporated (ABM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 04x versus Cintas Corporation's 2. 08x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Genpact Limited (G) trades at 8. 6x forward P/E versus 34. 8x for Cintas Corporation — 26. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for KELYA: 54. 6% to $15. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — CXW or CTAS or ABM or G or KELYA?
In this comparison, KELYA (3.
2% yield), ABM (2. 6% yield), G (1. 9% yield), CTAS (0. 9% yield) pay a dividend. CXW does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is CXW or CTAS or ABM or G or KELYA better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Cintas Corporation (CTAS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
51), 0. 9% yield, +685. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CTAS: +685. 0%, CXW: -13. 4%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between CXW and CTAS and ABM and G and KELYA?
These companies operate in different sectors (CXW (Real Estate) and CTAS (Industrials) and ABM (Industrials) and G (Technology) and KELYA (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: CXW is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CTAS is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; ABM is a small-cap deep-value stock; G is a small-cap deep-value stock; KELYA is a small-cap income-oriented stock. CTAS, ABM, G, KELYA pay a dividend while CXW does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.