PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
MNST vs. CTAS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends
Financials

Performance

MNST vs. CTAS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Monster Beverage Corporation (MNST) and Cintas Corporation (CTAS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MNST achieves a 21.08% return, which is significantly higher than CTAS's -5.80% return. Over the past 10 years, MNST has underperformed CTAS with an annualized return of 13.79%, while CTAS has yielded a comparatively higher 23.61% annualized return.


MNST

1D
0.87%
1M
8.03%
YTD
21.08%
6M
25.50%
1Y
45.75%
3Y*
16.85%
5Y*
14.70%
10Y*
13.79%

CTAS

1D
-3.08%
1M
8.08%
YTD
-5.80%
6M
-5.53%
1Y
-20.40%
3Y*
14.43%
5Y*
15.92%
10Y*
23.61%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

MNST vs. CTAS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
MNST
Monster Beverage Corporation
21.08%45.87%-8.77%13.48%5.72%3.85%45.52%29.11%-22.23%42.74%
CTAS
Cintas Corporation
-5.80%3.78%22.24%34.82%2.97%26.51%32.74%61.73%9.04%36.32%

Correlation

The correlation between MNST and CTAS is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.19

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.27

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.41

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.41

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 1995

0.23

The correlation between MNST and CTAS shifts across timeframes, from 0.19 (1 year) to 0.41 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Fundamentals

Market Cap

MNST:

$91.74B

CTAS:

$71.72B

EPS

MNST:

$2.06

CTAS:

$4.75

PE Ratio

MNST:

45.05

CTAS:

37.08

PEG Ratio

MNST:

3.52

CTAS:

2.60

PS Ratio

MNST:

10.41

CTAS:

6.51

PB Ratio

MNST:

10.51

CTAS:

14.98

Total Revenue (TTM)

MNST:

$8.79B

CTAS:

$11.03B

Gross Profit (TTM)

MNST:

$4.88B

CTAS:

$1.33B

EBITDA (TTM)

MNST:

$2.70B

CTAS:

$2.66B

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

MNST vs. CTAS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

MNST
MNST Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
MNST Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MNST Sortino Ratio Rank: 8686
Sortino Ratio Rank
MNST Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
MNST Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
MNST Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank

CTAS
CTAS Risk / Return Rank: 1010
Overall Rank
CTAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CTAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
Sortino Ratio Rank
CTAS Omega Ratio Rank: 99
Omega Ratio Rank
CTAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 1414
Calmar Ratio Rank
CTAS Martin Ratio Rank: 1212
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

MNST vs. CTAS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Monster Beverage Corporation (MNST) and Cintas Corporation (CTAS). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.


MNSTCTASDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+2.75

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+4.00

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

0.84

+0.50

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.60

-0.75

+3.35

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.37

-1.31

+8.68

MNST vs. CTAS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MNST Sharpe Ratio is 1.74, which is higher than the CTAS Sharpe Ratio of -1.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MNST and CTAS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

MNST vs. CTAS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MNST drawdown since its inception was -69.17%, which is greater than CTAS's maximum drawdown of -65.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MNST and CTAS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


MNSTCTASDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-69.17%

-65.32%

-3.85%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.70%

-27.23%

+9.53%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.04%

-27.68%

+1.64%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.62%

-27.68%

+1.06%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-30.42%

-48.38%

+17.96%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-21.83%

+21.83%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-20.66%

-15.04%

-5.62%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.22%

15.61%

-9.39%

Volatility

MNST vs. CTAS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Monster Beverage Corporation (MNST) is 5.50%, while Cintas Corporation (CTAS) has a volatility of 8.54%. This indicates that MNST experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CTAS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


MNSTCTASDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.50%

8.54%

-3.04%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

20.03%

15.74%

+4.29%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

26.43%

20.40%

+6.03%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.60%

22.60%

+2.00%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

26.25%

26.70%

-0.45%

Dividends

MNST vs. CTAS - Dividend Comparison

MNST has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CTAS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.02%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CTAS
Cintas Corporation
1.02%0.89%0.80%0.83%0.93%0.77%0.99%0.95%1.22%1.04%1.15%1.15%
MNST
Monster Beverage Corporation
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Financials

MNST vs. CTAS - Financials Comparison

This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Monster Beverage Corporation and Cintas Corporation. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.


Quarterly
Annual

Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities


1.50B2.00B2.50B3.00B20222023202420252026
2.35B
2.84B
(MNST) Total Revenue
(CTAS) Total Revenue
Values in USD except per share items

MNST vs. CTAS - Profitability Comparison

The chart below illustrates the profitability comparison between Monster Beverage Corporation and Cintas Corporation over time, highlighting three key metrics: Gross Profit Margin, Operating Margin, and Net Profit Margin.

Gross Margin
Operating Margin
Net Margin
Quarterly
Annual

-100.0%-50.0%0.0%50.0%20222023202420252026
55.0%
-97.8%
Portfolio components
MNST - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Monster Beverage Corporation reported a gross profit of 1.29B and revenue of 2.35B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 55.0%.

CTAS - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Cintas Corporation reported a gross profit of -2.78B and revenue of 2.84B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was -97.8%.

MNST - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Monster Beverage Corporation reported an operating income of 729.96M and revenue of 2.35B, resulting in an operating margin of 31.0%.

CTAS - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Cintas Corporation reported an operating income of 659.90M and revenue of 2.84B, resulting in an operating margin of 23.2%.

MNST - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Monster Beverage Corporation reported a net income of 569.49M and revenue of 2.35B, resulting in a net margin of 24.2%.

CTAS - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Cintas Corporation reported a net income of 502.50M and revenue of 2.84B, resulting in a net margin of 17.7%.


Frequently Asked Questions


MNST and CTAS have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CTAS has higher volatility (8.54%) compared to MNST (5.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MNST dropped -69.17% vs CTAS's -65.32%.

MNST currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.74 vs -1.00), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MNST and CTAS

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer