vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC (CWST) and HUTCHMED (China) Ltd (HCM). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($557.2M vs $270.8M, roughly 2.1× HUTCHMED (China) Ltd). HUTCHMED (China) Ltd runs the higher net margin — 0.7% vs -1.0%, a 1.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (9.6% vs -16.5%). CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC produced more free cash flow last quarter ($30.7M vs $3.4M).
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...
HUTCHMED (China) LtdHCMEarnings & Financial Report
HUTCHMED (China) Ltd is a biopharmaceutical firm focused on discovering, developing and commercializing targeted and immunotherapies for oncology and immunological diseases. It operates across China and global markets, with multiple marketed oncology drugs and a robust pipeline of late-stage clinical candidates addressing unmet patient needs.
CWST vs HCM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $557.2M | $270.8M |
| Net Profit | $-5.5M | $2.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | 37.7% |
| Operating Margin | 0.9% | -13.2% |
| Net Margin | -1.0% | 0.7% |
| Revenue YoY | 9.6% | -16.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | -15.2% | -83.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.09 | $0.00 |
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 | $270.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $485.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $465.3M | $277.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $417.1M | $324.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $427.5M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $411.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $377.2M | $305.7M |
| Q1 26 | $-5.5M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-2.5M | $2.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.2M | $455.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-4.8M | $11.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.0M | $25.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 33.3% | 37.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 35.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 33.8% | 0.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 32.8% | 48.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 33.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 35.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 35.4% | 41.1% |
| Q1 26 | 0.9% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.5% | -13.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.1% | -1.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.8% | -5.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.1% | -9.0% |
| Q1 26 | -1.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -0.5% | 0.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.1% | 163.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.2% | 3.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | 8.4% |
| Q1 26 | $-0.09 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-0.04 | $0.00 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.16 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.08 | $0.52 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.08 | $0.01 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.08 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.10 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.12 | $0.03 |
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 | $1.4B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $93.2M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.6B | $1.2B |
| Total Assets | $3.3B | $1.8B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.08× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $126.9M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $123.8M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $192.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $217.8M | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $267.7M | $836.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $358.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $519.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $208.5M | $802.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.1B | $93.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $93.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1B | $82.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $976.6M | $82.1M |
| Q1 26 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.6B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.5B | $759.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $740.1M |
| Q1 26 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.3B | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.3B | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.2B | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.5B | $1.3B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.72× | 0.08× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.72× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.72× | 0.08× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.72× | 0.11× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.70× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.68× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.94× | 0.11× |
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 | $8.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $30.7M | $3.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 5.5% | 1.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 9.0% | 1.8% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 4.21× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $120.7M | $-96.2M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $62.3M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $96.6M | $8.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $93.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $89.5M | $-72.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $50.1M | $40.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $109.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $91.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $72.1M | $-39.8M |
| Q1 26 | $30.7M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $39.3M | $3.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $27.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $23.1M | $-82.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.4M | $32.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $32.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $40.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $27.5M | $-49.9M |
| Q1 26 | 5.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 8.4% | 1.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.0% | -29.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.3% | 10.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.3% | -16.3% |
| Q1 26 | 9.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 12.2% | 1.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.3% | 3.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.3% | 2.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 18.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 12.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.8% | 3.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 4.21× | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.37× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.19× | -0.16× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 3.38× | ||
| Q4 24 | 22.51× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.91× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.29× | -1.54× |
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% |
HCM
Segment breakdown not available.
