vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC (CWST) and Helmerich & Payne, Inc. (HP). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Helmerich & Payne, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($981.1M vs $557.2M, roughly 1.8× CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC). CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC runs the higher net margin — -1.0% vs -9.9%, a 8.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Helmerich & Payne, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (45.4% vs 9.6%). Helmerich & Payne, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($114.9M vs $30.7M). Over the past eight quarters, CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC's revenue compounded faster (21.5% CAGR vs 19.7%).
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...
Helmerich & Payne, Inc. is an American petroleum contract drilling company engaged in oil and gas well drilling and related services for exploration and production companies headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, with operations throughout the world. Their FlexRigs, introduced in 1998, have been used extensively in drilling unconventional shale formations, such as the Bakken formation in North Dakota and the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford formation in Texas. H&P is the largest on-shore driller in th...
CWST vs HP — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $557.2M | $981.1M |
| Net Profit | $-5.5M | $-96.7M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 0.9% | -6.1% |
| Net Margin | -1.0% | -9.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 9.6% | 45.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | -15.2% | -276.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.09 | $-0.98 |
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 | $981.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $485.4M | $953.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $465.3M | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $417.1M | $1.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $427.5M | $674.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $411.6M | $691.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $377.2M | $695.1M |
| Q1 26 | $-5.5M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-2.5M | $-96.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.0M | $-57.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.2M | $-162.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-4.8M | $1.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.9M | $54.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.8M | $75.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.0M | $88.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 33.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 35.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 33.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 32.8% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 33.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 35.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 35.4% | — |
| Q1 26 | 0.9% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.5% | -6.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.1% | -0.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.1% | -12.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.8% | 4.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.3% | 13.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.9% | 15.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.1% | 16.0% |
| Q1 26 | -1.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -0.5% | -9.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.1% | -6.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.1% | -15.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.2% | 0.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.1% | 8.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.4% | 10.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | 12.8% |
| Q1 26 | $-0.09 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-0.04 | $-0.98 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.16 | $-0.57 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.08 | $-1.64 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.08 | $0.01 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.08 | $0.54 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.10 | $0.77 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.12 | $0.88 |
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 | $269.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $2.0B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.6B | $2.7B |
| Total Assets | $3.3B | $6.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.75× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $126.9M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $123.8M | $269.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $192.7M | $218.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $217.8M | $187.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $267.7M | $195.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $358.3M | $526.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $519.0M | $510.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $208.5M | $289.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.1B | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1B | $2.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.0B | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $976.6M | — |
| Q1 26 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.6B | $2.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.6B | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6B | $2.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.5B | $3.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | $2.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $2.9B |
| Q1 26 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.3B | $6.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3B | $6.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.3B | $6.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.2B | $7.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.2B | $5.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.1B | $5.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.5B | $4.5B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.72× | 0.75× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.72× | 0.73× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.72× | 0.76× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.72× | 0.73× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.70× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.68× | 0.61× | ||
| 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 | $182.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $30.7M | $114.9M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 5.5% | 11.7% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 9.0% | 6.9% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $120.7M | $179.6M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $62.3M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $96.6M | $182.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $93.6M | $206.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $89.5M | $121.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $50.1M | $56.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $109.8M | $158.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $91.8M | $168.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $72.1M | $197.4M |
| Q1 26 | $30.7M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $39.3M | $114.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $27.6M | $142.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $23.1M | $24.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.4M | $-102.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $32.9M | $51.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $40.4M | $62.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $27.5M | $63.0M |
| Q1 26 | 5.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 8.4% | 11.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.7% | 15.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.0% | 2.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.3% | -10.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.7% | 7.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.8% | 9.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.3% | 9.1% |
| Q1 26 | 9.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 12.2% | 6.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.6% | 6.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.3% | 9.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.3% | 15.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 18.0% | 15.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 12.5% | 15.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.8% | 19.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.37× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.19× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 33.89× | ||
| Q4 24 | 22.51× | 2.89× | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.91× | 2.24× | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.29× | 2.23× |
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% |
HP
| North America Solutions | $563.6M | 57% |
| International Solutions Segment | $229.3M | 23% |
| Offshore Solutions | $188.3M | 19% |
