Clean Harbors vs Casella Waste Systems
CLH and CWST side by side, both in electric, gas, and sanitary services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CLH and CWST compare
Clean Harbors is the larger company, worth 2.7 times as much as Casella Waste Systems ($15.9B against $5.9B).
On earnings, Clean Harbors is cheaper: it trades at 36.6× trailing earnings, against 1037× for Casella Waste Systems.
Casella Waste Systems grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.6% versus 5.1% for Clean Harbors).
Clean Harbors keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.0% compared with 0.29% at Casella Waste Systems.
Clean Harbors scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 9 for Casella Waste Systems), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | CLH | CWST |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $15.9B | $5.9B |
| Share price | $302.12 | $93.33 |
| Change, 1 year | 38.6% | 10.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 185% | 8.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.71 | 0.42 |
| Employees | 22K | 5,600 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 36.6× (better) | 1037× |
| P/S | 2.6× (better) | 3.0× |
| P/B | 5.4× | 3.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.2× (better) | 18.6× |
| P/FCF | 34.5× (better) | 56.2× |
| FCF yield | 2.9% (better) | 1.8% |
| Fair value | $206.55 | $95.62 |
| Margin of safety | −46.3% | 2.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.1% | 13.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 13.9% | 18.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 14.1% (better) | −48.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 15.9% (better) | −50.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 24.6% (better) | −42.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 32.3% | 33.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | 11.8% (better) | 3.4% |
| Net margin | 7.0% (better) | 0.29% |
| FCF margin | 7.4% (better) | 5.4% |
| Return on equity | 15.6% (better) | 0.36% |
| Return on invested capital | 10.9% (better) | 1.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.95 | 0.85 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.89 (better) | 3.39 |
| Interest coverage | – | 1.0× |
| Current ratio | 2.13 (better) | 0.99 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.79 (better) | 2.36 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 1.5% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.5% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 93.7% | 121% |
| Held by insiders | 5.1% | 1.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$65.0M | −$5.6M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.2% | 8.1% |
Go deeper
- CLH stock overview
- CLH income statement
- CLH valuation and score
- CWST stock overview
- CWST income statement
- CWST valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.