vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Akamai Technologies (AKAM) and CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC (CWST). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Akamai Technologies is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.1B vs $557.2M, roughly 1.9× CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC). Akamai Technologies runs the higher net margin — 9.9% vs -1.0%, a 10.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (9.6% vs -2.3%). Over the past eight quarters, CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC's revenue compounded faster (21.5% CAGR vs 4.7%).
Akamai Technologies, Inc. provides cloud services for securing, delivering, and optimizing content and business applications over the internet in the United States and internationally. The company offers cloud solutions to keep infrastructure, websites, applications, application programming interfaces, and users safe from various cyberattacks and online threats while enhancing performance. It also provides web and mobile performance solutions to enable dynamic websites and applications; media...
Casella Waste Systems, Inc. is a waste management company based in Rutland, Vermont, United States. Founded in 1975 with a single truck, Casella is a regional, vertically integrated solid waste services company. Casella provides resource management expertise and services to residential, commercial, municipal and industrial customers, primarily in the areas of solid waste collection and disposal, transfer, recycling and organics services. The company provides integrated solid waste services in...
AKAM vs CWST — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.1B | $557.2M |
| Net Profit | $106.3M | $-5.5M |
| Gross Margin | 98.0% | — |
| Operating Margin | 10.7% | 0.9% |
| Net Margin | 9.9% | -1.0% |
| Revenue YoY | -2.3% | 9.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | -13.7% | -15.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.71 | $-0.09 |
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 | $1.1B | $557.2M | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.1B | $469.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $485.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $465.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | $417.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.0B | $427.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.0B | $411.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $979.6M | $377.2M |
| Q1 26 | $106.3M | $-5.5M | ||
| Q4 25 | $85.1M | $-2.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $140.2M | $10.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $103.6M | $5.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $123.2M | $-4.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $139.9M | $4.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $57.9M | $5.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $131.7M | $7.0M |
| Q1 26 | 98.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 58.7% | 33.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 59.3% | 35.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 59.1% | 33.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 58.7% | 32.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 59.4% | 33.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 59.3% | 35.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 58.9% | 35.4% |
| Q1 26 | 10.7% | 0.9% | ||
| Q4 25 | 8.7% | 2.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 15.7% | 6.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.5% | 4.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 15.2% | 0.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.5% | 4.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.0% | 5.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.1% | 6.1% |
| Q1 26 | 9.9% | -1.0% | ||
| Q4 25 | 7.8% | -0.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.3% | 2.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.9% | 1.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.1% | -1.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 13.7% | 1.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.8% | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 13.4% | 1.9% |
| Q1 26 | $0.71 | $-0.09 | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.57 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.97 | $0.16 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.71 | $0.08 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.82 | $-0.08 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.92 | $0.08 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.38 | $0.10 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.86 | $0.12 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $622.4M | $126.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $4.9B | $1.6B |
| Total Assets | $11.6B | $3.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $622.4M | $126.9M | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $123.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $192.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $966.6M | $217.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $267.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | $358.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | $519.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6B | $208.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $976.6M |
| Q1 26 | $4.9B | $1.6B | ||
| Q4 25 | $5.0B | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.7B | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.5B | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.6B | $1.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.9B | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.8B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.8B | $1.0B |
| Q1 26 | $11.6B | $3.3B | ||
| Q4 25 | $11.5B | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.8B | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.5B | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.0B | $3.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.4B | $3.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.2B | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.1B | $2.5B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.72× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.72× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.72× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.72× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.70× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.68× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.94× |
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 | $312.5M | $62.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $30.7M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 5.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 19.2% | 9.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 2.94× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $120.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $312.5M | $62.3M | ||
| Q4 25 | $366.6M | $96.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $441.8M | $93.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $459.1M | $89.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $251.2M | $50.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $343.8M | $109.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $392.5M | $91.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $431.0M | $72.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | $30.7M | ||
| Q4 25 | $234.9M | $39.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $329.1M | $27.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $313.6M | $23.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $133.4M | $-5.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $250.9M | $32.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $279.7M | $40.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $340.0M | $27.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | 5.5% | ||
| Q4 25 | 21.5% | 8.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 31.2% | 5.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 30.1% | 5.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.1% | -1.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.6% | 7.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 27.8% | 9.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 34.7% | 7.3% |
| Q1 26 | 19.2% | 9.0% | ||
| Q4 25 | 12.0% | 12.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.7% | 13.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.9% | 14.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.6% | 13.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.1% | 18.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.2% | 12.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.3% | 11.8% |
| Q1 26 | 2.94× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 4.31× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.15× | 9.37× | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.43× | 17.19× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.04× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.46× | 22.51× | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.78× | 15.91× | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.27× | 10.29× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AKAM
| Security | $589.8M | 55% |
| Delivery and other cloud applications | $389.2M | 36% |
| Cloud Infrastructure Services | $94.6M | 9% |
CWST
| Collection | $334.8M | 60% |
| Transfer station | $65.9M | 12% |
| Processing (ii) | $49.0M | 9% |
| Landfill | $48.0M | 9% |
| National Accounts (ii) | $45.6M | 8% |
| Transportation | $8.2M | 1% |
| Landfill gas-to-energy | $2.9M | 1% |
