vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC (CWST) and GENMAB A/S (GMAB). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
GENMAB A/S is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($925.0M vs $557.2M, roughly 1.7× CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC). GENMAB A/S runs the higher net margin — 36.3% vs -1.0%, a 37.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, GENMAB A/S posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (18.7% vs 9.6%). GENMAB A/S produced more free cash flow last quarter ($327.0M vs $30.7M).
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...
Genmab A/S is a Danish biotechnology company, founded in February 1999 by Florian Schönharting, at the time managing director of BankInvest Biomedical venture fund. The company is based in Copenhagen, Denmark – internationally, it operates through the subsidiaries Genmab B.V. in Utrecht, The Netherlands, Genmab U.S., Inc. in Princeton, New Jersey, US, Genmab K.K. in Tokyo, Japan, Genmab Germany GmbH in München, Germany and Genmab (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. in Suzhou, China. Genmab is listed on the Co...
CWST vs GMAB — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q2 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $557.2M | $925.0M |
| Net Profit | $-5.5M | $336.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | 93.8% |
| Operating Margin | 0.9% | 38.9% |
| Net Margin | -1.0% | 36.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 9.6% | 18.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | -15.2% | 65.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.09 | $5.42 |
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 | $557.2M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $469.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $485.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $465.3M | $925.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $417.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $427.5M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $411.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $377.2M | $779.0M |
| Q1 26 | $-5.5M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-2.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.2M | $336.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-4.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.0M | $203.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 33.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 35.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 33.8% | 93.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 32.8% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 33.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 35.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 35.4% | 96.4% |
| Q1 26 | 0.9% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.1% | 38.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.8% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.1% | 30.3% |
| Q1 26 | -1.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -0.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.1% | 36.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | 26.1% |
| Q1 26 | $-0.09 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-0.04 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.16 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.08 | $5.42 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.08 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.08 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.10 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.12 | $3.13 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $126.9M | $1.3B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.6B | $5.3B |
| Total Assets | $3.3B | $6.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $126.9M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $123.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $192.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $217.8M | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $267.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $358.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $519.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $208.5M | $622.0M |
| 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 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6B | $5.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $4.4B |
| Q1 26 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.3B | $6.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.5B | $5.6B |
| 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 | $62.3M | $349.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $30.7M | $327.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 5.5% | 35.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 9.0% | 2.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 1.04× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $120.7M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $62.3M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $96.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $93.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $89.5M | $349.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $50.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $109.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $91.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $72.1M | $438.0M |
| Q1 26 | $30.7M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $39.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $27.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $23.1M | $327.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $32.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $40.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $27.5M | $430.0M |
| Q1 26 | 5.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 8.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.0% | 35.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.3% | 55.2% |
| Q1 26 | 9.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 12.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.3% | 2.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 18.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 12.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.8% | 1.0% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.37× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.19× | 1.04× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 22.51× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.91× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.29× | 2.16× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
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% |
GMAB
| Darzalex | $638.0M | 69% |
| Kesimpta | $108.0M | 12% |
| Net Product Sales | $101.0M | 11% |
| Other | $28.0M | 3% |
| Tepezza | $20.0M | 2% |
| Reimbursement Revenue | $13.0M | 1% |
| Bio N Tech | $11.0M | 1% |
| Abb Vie | $5.0M | 1% |
| Milestone Revenue | $1.0M | 0% |
