vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Agilent Technologies (A) and CLEAN HARBORS INC (CLH). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Agilent Technologies is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.8B vs $1.5B, roughly 1.2× CLEAN HARBORS INC). Agilent Technologies runs the higher net margin — 17.0% vs 5.8%, a 11.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Agilent Technologies posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (7.0% vs 4.8%). CLEAN HARBORS INC produced more free cash flow last quarter ($233.3M vs $175.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Agilent Technologies's revenue compounded faster (6.9% CAGR vs 4.4%).
Agilent Technologies, Inc. provides application focused solutions to the life sciences, diagnostics, and applied chemical markets worldwide. The Life Sciences and Applied Markets segment offers liquid chromatography systems and components; liquid chromatography mass spectrometry systems; gas chromatography systems and components; gas chromatography mass spectrometry systems; inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry instruments; atomic absorption instruments; microwave plasma-atomic emissi...
Clean Harbors, Inc., headquartered in Norwell, Massachusetts, is a provider of waste management and industrial services for commercial customers, specializing in the collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste, but also offering services for non-hazardous waste. The company has 870 operating locations in 630 properties in the U.S. and Canada including a network of over 100 waste disposal facilities such as incinerators, landfills, treatment, storage and disposal faci...
A vs CLH — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.8B | $1.5B |
| Net Profit | $305.0M | $86.6M |
| Gross Margin | 52.6% | 30.6% |
| Operating Margin | 19.6% | 10.6% |
| Net Margin | 17.0% | 5.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 7.0% | 4.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | -4.1% | 3.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.07 | $1.62 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history. Quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q1 26 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.7B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7B | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.7B | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.7B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.6B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6B | $1.6B |
| Q1 26 | $305.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $434.0M | $86.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $336.0M | $118.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $215.0M | $126.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $318.0M | $58.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $351.0M | $84.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $282.0M | $115.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $308.0M | $133.3M |
| Q1 26 | 52.6% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 53.2% | 30.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 51.1% | 32.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 51.9% | 33.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 53.5% | 28.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 53.9% | 29.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 54.2% | 31.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 54.4% | 33.3% |
| Q1 26 | 19.6% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 23.8% | 10.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.7% | 12.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.0% | 13.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 22.4% | 7.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.0% | 9.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 21.1% | 12.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.1% | 13.9% |
| Q1 26 | 17.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 23.3% | 5.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.3% | 7.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.9% | 8.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 18.9% | 4.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 20.6% | 5.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 17.9% | 7.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.6% | 8.6% |
| Q1 26 | $1.07 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.53 | $1.62 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.18 | $2.21 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.75 | $2.36 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.11 | $1.09 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.23 | $1.55 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.97 | $2.12 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.05 | $2.46 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.8B | $127.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $3.0B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $6.9B | $2.7B |
| Total Assets | $12.8B | $7.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.44× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.8B | $127.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.5B | $91.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5B | $98.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.5B | $105.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | $102.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.8B | $82.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7B | $91.3M |
| Q1 26 | $3.0B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.0B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.4B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.1B | — |
| Q1 26 | $6.9B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $6.7B | $2.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.4B | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.1B | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.0B | $2.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.9B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.9B | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.2B | $2.4B |
| Q1 26 | $12.8B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $12.7B | $7.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.2B | $7.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.2B | $7.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.9B | $7.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.8B | $7.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.0B | $7.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.9B | $7.1B |
| Q1 26 | 0.44× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.45× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.53× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.55× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.56× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.57× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.36× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.34× | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Cash flow is harder to manipulate than net income.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $268.0M | $355.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $175.0M | $233.3M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 9.7% | 15.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 5.2% | 8.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 0.88× | 4.10× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $993.0M | $441.8M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $268.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $545.0M | $355.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $362.0M | $302.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $221.0M | $208.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $431.0M | $1.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $481.0M | $303.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $452.0M | $239.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $333.0M | $216.0M |
| Q1 26 | $175.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $452.0M | $233.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $259.0M | $207.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $107.0M | $118.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $334.0M | $-117.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $388.0M | $241.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $360.0M | $142.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $230.0M | $80.9M |
| Q1 26 | 9.7% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 24.3% | 15.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.9% | 13.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.4% | 7.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.9% | -8.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 22.8% | 16.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.8% | 9.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.6% | 5.2% |
| Q1 26 | 5.2% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 5.0% | 8.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.9% | 6.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.8% | 5.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.8% | 8.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.5% | 4.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.8% | 6.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.5% | 8.7% |
| Q1 26 | 0.88× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.26× | 4.10× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.08× | 2.54× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.03× | 1.64× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.36× | 0.03× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.37× | 3.62× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.60× | 2.08× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.08× | 1.62× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
A
| Service Other | $525.0M | 29% |
| Chemicaland Energy Market | $422.0M | 23% |
| Agilent Cross Lab | $273.0M | 15% |
| Environmentaland Forensics Market | $177.0M | 10% |
| Food Market | $166.0M | 9% |
| Academiaand Government Market | $130.0M | 7% |
| Applied Markets | $98.0M | 5% |
CLH
| Technical Services | $479.3M | 32% |
| Safetly Kleen Environmental Services | $252.9M | 17% |
| Fieldand Emergency Response | $246.6M | 16% |
| Products | $205.3M | 14% |
| Safety Kleen Sustainability Solutions Segment | $188.4M | 13% |
| Safety Kleen Oil | $132.6M | 9% |
