vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CLEAN HARBORS INC (CLH) and EPAM Systems (EPAM). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
CLEAN HARBORS INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.5B vs $1.4B, roughly 1.1× EPAM Systems). EPAM Systems runs the higher net margin — 7.8% vs 5.8%, a 2.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, EPAM Systems posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (12.8% vs 4.8%). EPAM Systems produced more free cash flow last quarter ($268.1M vs $233.3M). Over the past eight quarters, EPAM Systems's revenue compounded faster (9.9% CAGR vs 4.4%).
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...
EPAM Systems, Inc. is an American company that specializes in software engineering services, digital platform engineering, and digital product design, operating out of Newtown, Pennsylvania. EPAM is a founding member of the MACH Alliance.
CLH vs EPAM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.5B | $1.4B |
| Net Profit | $86.6M | $109.4M |
| Gross Margin | 30.6% | 30.1% |
| Operating Margin | 10.6% | 10.6% |
| Net Margin | 5.8% | 7.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 4.8% | 12.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | 3.1% | 5.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.62 | $1.97 |
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 | $1.5B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.5B | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5B | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.4B | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6B | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.4B | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | $86.6M | $109.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $118.8M | $106.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $126.9M | $88.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $58.7M | $73.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $84.0M | $103.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $115.2M | $136.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $133.3M | $98.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $69.8M | $116.2M |
| Q4 25 | 30.6% | 30.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 32.3% | 29.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 33.3% | 28.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 28.6% | 26.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 29.9% | 30.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 31.0% | 34.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 33.3% | 29.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 29.5% | 28.4% |
| Q4 25 | 10.6% | 10.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 12.5% | 10.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.6% | 9.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.8% | 7.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.6% | 10.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 12.6% | 15.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 13.9% | 10.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 9.1% | 9.5% |
| Q4 25 | 5.8% | 7.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.7% | 7.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.2% | 6.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.1% | 5.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.9% | 8.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.5% | 11.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.6% | 8.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.1% | 10.0% |
| Q4 25 | $1.62 | $1.97 | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.21 | $1.91 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.36 | $1.56 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.09 | $1.28 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.55 | $1.80 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.12 | $2.37 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.46 | $1.70 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.29 | $1.97 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $127.4M | $1.3B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.7B | $3.7B |
| Total Assets | $7.6B | $4.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $127.4M | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $91.2M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $98.9M | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $105.9M | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $102.6M | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $82.4M | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $91.3M | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $104.8M | $2.0B |
| Q4 25 | $2.7B | $3.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.8B | $3.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.7B | $3.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6B | $3.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.6B | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | $3.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.4B | $3.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.3B | $3.5B |
| Q4 25 | $7.6B | $4.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.5B | $4.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.4B | $4.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.2B | $4.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.4B | $4.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.3B | $4.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.1B | $4.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.9B | $4.4B |
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 | $355.1M | $282.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $233.3M | $268.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 15.6% | 19.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 8.1% | 1.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 4.10× | 2.59× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $441.8M | $612.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $355.1M | $282.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $302.0M | $294.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $208.0M | $53.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.6M | $24.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $303.9M | $130.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $239.2M | $242.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $216.0M | $57.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $18.5M | $129.9M |
| Q4 25 | $233.3M | $268.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $207.5M | $286.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $118.0M | $43.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-117.1M | $14.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $241.5M | $114.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $142.4M | $237.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $80.9M | $52.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-119.4M | $123.2M |
| Q4 25 | 15.6% | 19.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.4% | 20.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.6% | 3.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | -8.2% | 1.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 16.9% | 9.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.3% | 20.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.2% | 4.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | -8.7% | 10.6% |
| Q4 25 | 8.1% | 1.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.1% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.8% | 0.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.3% | 0.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.4% | 1.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.3% | 0.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.7% | 0.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.0% | 0.6% |
| Q4 25 | 4.10× | 2.59× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.54× | 2.76× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.64× | 0.60× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.03× | 0.33× | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.62× | 1.26× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.08× | 1.77× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.62× | 0.58× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.27× | 1.12× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
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% |
EPAM
Segment breakdown not available.
