vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES INC (AIT) and CLEAN HARBORS INC (CLH). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
CLEAN HARBORS INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.5B vs $1.2B, roughly 1.3× APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES INC). APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES INC runs the higher net margin — 8.2% vs 5.8%, a 2.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (8.4% vs 4.8%). CLEAN HARBORS INC produced more free cash flow last quarter ($233.3M vs $93.4M). Over the past eight quarters, CLEAN HARBORS INC's revenue compounded faster (4.4% CAGR vs 0.7%).
Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc. (AIT) is a public, global company based in the U.S. and focused on the distribution of bearings, power transmission products, engineered fluid power components and systems, specialty flow control products, and other industrial supplies. AIT provides engineering, design and system integration for industrial and fluid power applications, as well as customized mechanical, fabricated rubber, fluid power, and flow control shop services.
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...
AIT vs CLH — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.2B | $1.5B |
| Net Profit | $95.3M | $86.6M |
| Gross Margin | 30.4% | 30.6% |
| Operating Margin | 10.6% | 10.6% |
| Net Margin | 8.2% | 5.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 8.4% | 4.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | 2.2% | 3.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.51 | $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.
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.1B | $1.4B |
| Q4 25 | $95.3M | $86.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $100.8M | $118.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $107.8M | $126.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.8M | $58.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $93.3M | $84.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $92.1M | $115.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $103.5M | $133.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $97.2M | $69.8M |
| Q4 25 | 30.4% | 30.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 30.1% | 32.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 30.6% | 33.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 30.5% | 28.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 30.6% | 29.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 29.6% | 31.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 30.7% | 33.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 29.5% | 29.5% |
| Q4 25 | 10.6% | 10.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.8% | 12.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.0% | 13.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.1% | 7.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.3% | 9.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.3% | 12.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.0% | 13.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.6% | 9.1% |
| Q4 25 | 8.2% | 5.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.4% | 7.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.8% | 8.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.6% | 4.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.7% | 5.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.4% | 7.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.9% | 8.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.5% | 5.1% |
| Q4 25 | $2.51 | $1.62 | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.63 | $2.21 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.80 | $2.36 | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.57 | $1.09 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.39 | $1.55 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.36 | $2.12 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.64 | $2.46 | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.48 | $1.29 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $406.0M | $127.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.9B | $2.7B |
| Total Assets | $3.2B | $7.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $406.0M | $127.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $418.7M | $91.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $388.4M | $98.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $352.8M | $105.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $303.4M | $102.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $538.5M | $82.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $460.6M | $91.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $456.5M | $104.8M |
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $2.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.9B | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8B | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.8B | $2.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.8B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.8B | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7B | $2.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7B | $2.3B |
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | $7.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.2B | $7.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.2B | $7.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.1B | $7.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0B | $7.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.0B | $7.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.0B | $7.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.9B | $6.9B |
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 | $99.7M | $355.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $93.4M | $233.3M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 8.0% | 15.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.5% | 8.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.05× | 4.10× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $458.5M | $441.8M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $99.7M | $355.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $119.3M | $302.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $147.0M | $208.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $122.5M | $1.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $95.1M | $303.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $127.7M | $239.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $119.2M | $216.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $84.2M | $18.5M |
| Q4 25 | $93.4M | $233.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $112.0M | $207.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $138.2M | $118.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $114.9M | $-117.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $89.9M | $241.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $122.2M | $142.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $111.7M | $80.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $76.7M | $-119.4M |
| Q4 25 | 8.0% | 15.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.3% | 13.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.3% | 7.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.8% | -8.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.4% | 16.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.1% | 9.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.6% | 5.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.7% | -8.7% |
| Q4 25 | 0.5% | 8.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.6% | 6.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.7% | 5.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.6% | 8.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.5% | 4.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.5% | 6.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.6% | 8.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.7% | 10.0% |
| Q4 25 | 1.05× | 4.10× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.18× | 2.54× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.36× | 1.64× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.23× | 0.03× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.02× | 3.62× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.39× | 2.08× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.15× | 1.62× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.87× | 0.27× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AIT
| Service Center Based Distribution Segment | $625.2M | 54% |
| Engineered Solutions Segment | $398.9M | 34% |
| Other | $75.8M | 7% |
| Hydradyne LLC | $63.1M | 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% |
