vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC (CWST) and GFL Environmental Inc. (GFL), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
GFL Environmental Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($4.9B vs $469.1M, roughly 10.5× CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC). CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS INC runs the higher net margin — -0.5% vs -13.9%, a 13.4% gap on every dollar of revenue.
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...
GFL Environmental Inc. is an American-Canadian waste management company founded in Vaughan, Ontario, with headquarters in Miami Beach, Florida. Founded in 2007, GFL operates in all provinces in Canada and much of the United States, and currently employs more than 20,000 people. The company provides environmental services to municipal, residential, commercial, industrial and institutional customers.
CWST vs GFL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q3 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $469.1M | $4.9B |
| Net Profit | $-2.5M | $-686.1M |
| Gross Margin | 33.3% | — |
| Operating Margin | 2.5% | — |
| Net Margin | -0.5% | -13.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 9.7% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | -151.5% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $-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 | $469.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $485.4M | $4.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $465.3M | $3.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $417.1M | $1.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $427.5M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $411.6M | $5.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $377.2M | $3.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $341.0M | $1.8B |
| Q4 25 | $-2.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.0M | $-686.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.2M | $-727.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-4.8M | $-195.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.8M | $94.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-4.1M | $-217.8M |
| 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 24 | 32.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | 2.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.1% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.8% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.1% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | -0.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.1% | -13.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.1% | -22.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.2% | -12.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.4% | 1.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -1.2% | -12.1% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.04 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.16 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.08 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.08 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.08 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.10 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.12 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-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 | $123.8M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $1.1B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.6B | — |
| Total Assets | $3.3B | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.72× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $123.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $192.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $217.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $267.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $358.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $519.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $208.5M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $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 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.0B | — |
| Q4 25 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.3B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $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 | $96.6M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $39.3M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 8.4% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 12.2% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $84.7M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $96.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $93.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $89.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $50.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $109.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $91.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $72.1M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | $39.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $27.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $23.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $32.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $40.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $27.5M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-22.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | 8.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.3% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -6.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | 12.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 18.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 12.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.37× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.19× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 22.51× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.91× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.29× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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
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% |
GFL
Segment breakdown not available.
