vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CLEAN HARBORS INC (CLH) and CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC (CWST), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
CLEAN HARBORS INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.5B vs $469.1M, roughly 3.2× CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC). CLEAN HARBORS INC runs the higher net margin — 5.8% vs -0.5%, a 6.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (9.7% vs 4.8%). CLEAN HARBORS INC produced more free cash flow last quarter ($233.3M vs $39.3M). Over the past eight quarters, CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC's revenue compounded faster (17.3% 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...
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...
CLH vs CWST — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.5B | $469.1M |
| Net Profit | $86.6M | $-2.5M |
| Gross Margin | 30.6% | 33.3% |
| Operating Margin | 10.6% | 2.5% |
| Net Margin | 5.8% | -0.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 4.8% | 9.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 3.1% | -151.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.62 | $-0.04 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | $469.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.5B | $485.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5B | $465.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.4B | $417.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | $427.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | $411.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6B | $377.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.4B | $341.0M |
| Q4 25 | $86.6M | $-2.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $118.8M | $10.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $126.9M | $5.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $58.7M | $-4.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $84.0M | $4.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $115.2M | $5.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $133.3M | $7.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $69.8M | $-4.1M |
| Q4 25 | 30.6% | 33.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 32.3% | 35.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 33.3% | 33.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 28.6% | 32.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 29.9% | 33.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 31.0% | 35.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 33.3% | 35.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 29.5% | 32.3% |
| Q4 25 | 10.6% | 2.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 12.5% | 6.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.6% | 4.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.8% | 0.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.6% | 4.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 12.6% | 5.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 13.9% | 6.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 9.1% | 2.0% |
| Q4 25 | 5.8% | -0.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.7% | 2.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.2% | 1.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.1% | -1.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.9% | 1.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.5% | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.6% | 1.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.1% | -1.2% |
| Q4 25 | $1.62 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.21 | $0.16 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.36 | $0.08 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.09 | $-0.08 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.55 | $0.08 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.12 | $0.10 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.46 | $0.12 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.29 | $-0.07 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $127.4M | $123.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $1.1B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.7B | $1.6B |
| Total Assets | $7.6B | $3.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.72× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $127.4M | $123.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $91.2M | $192.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $98.9M | $217.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $105.9M | $267.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $102.6M | $358.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $82.4M | $519.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $91.3M | $208.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $104.8M | $189.5M |
| 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 24 | — | $980.9M |
| Q4 25 | $2.7B | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.8B | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.7B | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6B | $1.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.6B | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.4B | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.3B | $1.0B |
| Q4 25 | $7.6B | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.5B | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.4B | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.2B | $3.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.4B | $3.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.3B | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.1B | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.9B | $2.5B |
| 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× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.96× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $355.1M | $96.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $233.3M | $39.3M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 15.6% | 8.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 8.1% | 12.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 4.10× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $441.8M | $84.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $355.1M | $96.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $302.0M | $93.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $208.0M | $89.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.6M | $50.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $303.9M | $109.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $239.2M | $91.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $216.0M | $72.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $18.5M | $7.7M |
| Q4 25 | $233.3M | $39.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $207.5M | $27.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $118.0M | $23.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-117.1M | $-5.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $241.5M | $32.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $142.4M | $40.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $80.9M | $27.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-119.4M | $-22.6M |
| Q4 25 | 15.6% | 8.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.4% | 5.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.6% | 5.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | -8.2% | -1.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 16.9% | 7.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.3% | 9.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.2% | 7.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -8.7% | -6.6% |
| Q4 25 | 8.1% | 12.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.1% | 13.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.8% | 14.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.3% | 13.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.4% | 18.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.3% | 12.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.7% | 11.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.0% | 8.9% |
| Q4 25 | 4.10× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.54× | 9.37× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.64× | 17.19× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.03× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.62× | 22.51× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.08× | 15.91× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.62× | 10.29× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.27× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
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% |
CWST
| Transferred Over Time | $120.9M | 26% |
| Resource Solutions Region | $92.9M | 20% |
| Collection | $90.9M | 19% |
| Mid Atlantic Region | $89.6M | 19% |
| National Accounts | $60.9M | 13% |
| Landfill Revenue | $8.3M | 2% |
| Processing Services | $2.1M | 0% |
| Transportation | $1.4M | 0% |
