Medical - Care Facilities
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
HCSG vs AMSF vs ABM vs CTAS vs SERV
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Specialty
Specialty Business Services
Specialty Business Services
Industrial - Machinery
HCSG vs AMSF vs ABM vs CTAS vs SERV — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Care Facilities | Insurance - Specialty | Specialty Business Services | Specialty Business Services | Industrial - Machinery |
| Market Cap | $1.60B | $569M | $2.39B | $68.52B | $560M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.84B | $325M | $8.87B | $10.79B | $5M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $59M | $46M | $158M | $1.90B | $-137M |
| Gross Margin | 13.3% | 47.6% | 11.5% | 50.2% | -441.1% |
| Operating Margin | 3.0% | 17.8% | 3.7% | 23.0% | -28.8% |
| Forward P/E | 20.8x | 14.4x | 10.3x | 34.8x | — |
| Total Debt | $25M | $491K | $1.69B | $2.65B | $5M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $161M | $62M | $104M | $264M | $106M |
HCSG vs AMSF vs ABM vs CTAS vs SERV — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Mar 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healthcare Services… (HCSG) | 100 | 178.8 | +78.8% |
| AMERISAFE, Inc. (AMSF) | 100 | 60.4 | -39.6% |
| ABM Industries Inco… (ABM) | 100 | 91.3 | -8.7% |
| Cintas Corporation (CTAS) | 100 | 99.0 | -1.0% |
| Serve Robotics Inc. (SERV) | 100 | 176.5 | +76.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: HCSG vs AMSF vs ABM vs CTAS vs SERV
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
HCSG ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +55.8% vs AMSF's -29.2%
AMSF has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 0.23, yield 8.4%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.23, Low D/E 0.2%, current ratio 0.32x
- Beta 0.23, yield 8.4%, current ratio 0.32x
- Beta 0.23 vs SERV's 4.09, lower leverage
ABM is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.04 vs CTAS's 2.08
- Better valuation composite
CTAS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding is your priority.
- 6.9% 10Y total return vs SERV's 70.9%
- 17.6% margin vs SERV's -26.4%
- 18.7% ROA vs SERV's -44.9%, ROIC 25.8% vs -64.9%
SERV is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 46.3%, EPS growth -52.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 190.8%
- 46.3% revenue growth vs AMSF's 2.6%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 46.3% revenue growth vs AMSF's 2.6% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 17.6% margin vs SERV's -26.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.23 vs SERV's 4.09, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 8.4% yield, vs ABM's 2.6%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +55.8% vs AMSF's -29.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 18.7% ROA vs SERV's -44.9%, ROIC 25.8% vs -64.9% |
HCSG vs AMSF vs ABM vs CTAS vs SERV — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
HCSG vs AMSF vs ABM vs CTAS vs SERV — 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
ABM leads 1 • HCSG leads 0 • AMSF leads 0 • SERV leads 0 • 3 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 — 2078.1x SERV's $5M. CTAS is the more profitable business, keeping 17.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to SERV's -26.4%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.8B | $325M | $8.9B | $10.8B | $5M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $72M | $58M | $431M | $2.9B | -$142M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $59M | $46M | $158M | $1.9B | -$137M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $139M | $8M | $327M | $1.8B | -$148M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +13.3% | +47.6% | +11.5% | +50.2% | -4.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +3.0% | +17.8% | +3.7% | +23.0% | -28.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +3.2% | +14.3% | +1.8% | +17.6% | -26.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +7.6% | +2.5% | +3.7% | +16.5% | -28.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +6.6% | +10.3% | +6.1% | +9.3% | +5.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +175.0% | -8.5% | -7.2% | +11.0% | -80.6% |
Valuation Metrics
ABM leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 12.3x trailing earnings, AMSF trades at a 68% 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 | $1.6B | $569M | $2.4B | $68.5B | $560M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.5B | $508M | $4.0B | $70.9B | $459M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 27.54x | 12.27x | 15.74x | 38.65x | -5.58x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 20.83x | 14.42x | 10.30x | 34.75x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.05x | 2.31x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 22.38x | 8.53x | 9.23x | 24.85x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.87x | 1.80x | 0.27x | 6.63x | 211.40x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.19x | 2.30x | 1.43x | 14.89x | 1.61x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 11.49x | 63.83x | 15.40x | 39.00x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
CTAS leads this category, winning 5 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 $-47 for SERV. AMSF carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x 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 SERV's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +11.8% | +9.7% | +8.8% | +42.6% | -47.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +7.3% | +5.6% | +3.0% | +18.7% | -44.9% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +9.0% | +21.9% | +7.5% | +25.8% | -64.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +7.7% | +16.8% | +8.2% | +29.8% | -46.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 3 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.05x | 0.00x | 0.95x | 0.57x | 0.01x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$136M | -$61M | $1.6B | $2.4B | -$101M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $161M | $62M | $104M | $264M | $106M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $25M | $491,000 | $1.7B | $2.7B | $5M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 33.02x | — | 3.25x | 24.61x | -14706.75x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — HCSG and CTAS and SERV each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CTAS five years ago would be worth $19,584 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $7,888 for HCSG. Over the past 12 months, HCSG leads with a +55.8% total return vs AMSF's -29.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors SERV at 19.6% vs AMSF's -9.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +28.6% | -18.3% | -3.1% | -7.8% | -23.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +55.8% | -29.2% | -16.0% | -20.1% | +51.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +48.6% | -24.8% | +3.4% | +51.7% | +70.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -21.1% | -18.9% | -14.1% | +95.8% | +70.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -26.8% | +31.8% | +48.7% | +685.0% | +70.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +14.1% | -9.1% | +1.1% | +14.9% | +19.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — HCSG and AMSF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
AMSF is the less volatile stock with a 0.23 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than SERV's 4.09 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. HCSG currently trades 91.5% from its 52-week high vs SERV's 48.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.12x | 0.23x | 0.72x | 0.51x | 4.09x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $24.39 | $48.54 | $52.94 | $229.24 | $18.64 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $12.66 | $29.42 | $36.96 | $165.46 | $5.87 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +91.5% | +62.4% | +77.0% | +74.2% | +48.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 61.8 | 34.2 | 54.8 | 37.7 | 53.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 676K | 212K | 512K | 2.2M | 3.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — AMSF and ABM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: HCSG as "Hold", AMSF as "Buy", ABM as "Hold", CTAS as "Hold", SERV as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 79.6% upside for SERV (target: $16) vs 9.8% for HCSG (target: $25). For income investors, AMSF offers the higher dividend yield at 8.41% vs CTAS's 0.88%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $24.50 | $44.50 | $50.00 | $223.40 | $16.33 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 15 | 6 | 11 | 30 | 20 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +8.4% | +2.6% | +0.9% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 20 | 0 | 36 | 3 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $2.55 | $1.05 | $1.49 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +3.9% | +2.1% | +5.1% | +1.4% | 0.0% |
CTAS leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). ABM leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 3 tied.
HCSG vs AMSF vs ABM vs CTAS vs SERV: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is HCSG or AMSF or ABM or CTAS or SERV a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Serve Robotics Inc.
(SERV) is the stronger pick with 46. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 2. 6% for AMERISAFE, Inc. (AMSF). AMERISAFE, Inc. (AMSF) offers the better valuation at 12. 3x trailing P/E (14. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate AMERISAFE, Inc. (AMSF) a "Buy" — based on 6 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 — HCSG or AMSF or ABM or CTAS or SERV?
On trailing P/E, AMERISAFE, Inc.
(AMSF) is the cheapest at 12. 3x versus Cintas Corporation at 38. 6x. On forward P/E, ABM Industries Incorporated is actually cheaper at 10. 3x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. 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 — HCSG or AMSF or ABM or CTAS or SERV?
Over the past 5 years, Cintas Corporation (CTAS) delivered a total return of +95.
8%, compared to -21. 1% for Healthcare Services Group, Inc. (HCSG). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CTAS returned +685. 0% versus HCSG's -26. 8%. 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 — HCSG or AMSF or ABM or CTAS or SERV?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), AMERISAFE, Inc.
(AMSF) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 23β versus Serve Robotics Inc. 's 4. 09β — meaning SERV is approximately 1672% more volatile than AMSF relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, AMERISAFE, Inc. (AMSF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 95% for ABM Industries Incorporated — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — HCSG or AMSF or ABM or CTAS or SERV?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Serve Robotics Inc.
(SERV) is pulling ahead at 46. 3% versus 2. 6% for AMERISAFE, Inc. (AMSF). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: ABM Industries Incorporated grew EPS 102. 3% year-over-year, compared to -52. 3% for Serve Robotics Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, SERV leads at 190. 8% 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 — HCSG or AMSF or ABM or CTAS or SERV?
Cintas Corporation (CTAS) is the more profitable company, earning 17.
5% net margin versus -38. 2% for Serve Robotics 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 -42. 5% for SERV. 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 HCSG or AMSF or ABM or CTAS or SERV 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, ABM Industries Incorporated (ABM) trades at 10. 3x forward P/E versus 34. 8x for Cintas Corporation — 24. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SERV: 79. 6% to $16. 33.
08Which pays a better dividend — HCSG or AMSF or ABM or CTAS or SERV?
In this comparison, AMSF (8.
4% yield), ABM (2. 6% yield), CTAS (0. 9% yield) pay a dividend. HCSG, SERV do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is HCSG or AMSF or ABM or CTAS or SERV 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). Serve Robotics Inc. (SERV) carries a higher beta of 4. 09 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CTAS: +685. 0%, SERV: +70. 9%), 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 HCSG and AMSF and ABM and CTAS and SERV?
These companies operate in different sectors (HCSG (Healthcare) and AMSF (Financial Services) and ABM (Industrials) and CTAS (Industrials) and SERV (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: HCSG is a small-cap quality compounder stock; AMSF is a small-cap deep-value stock; ABM is a small-cap deep-value stock; CTAS is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; SERV is a small-cap high-growth stock. AMSF, ABM, CTAS pay a dividend while HCSG, SERV do 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.