Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CLH scored 38.6, ZWS scored 62.6 — ZWS leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CLH's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but ZWS's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
CLH
Clean Harbors, Inc.
Waste Management · Quality-Growth
38.6
$316.93 · $16.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
24.0
ZWS leads
ZWS
Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corporation
Pollution & Treatment Controls · Quality-Growth
62.6
$46.57 · $7.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestZWS28.9x
Fastest growthZWS+10.0%
Strongest balance sheetZWS0.33
Highest qualityZWS73 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
CLH
stronger →← stronger
ZWS
62
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
73
55
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
79
17
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
43
ZWS is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CLH
ZWS
$458mC
FCF
$308mC
+2.4%C
Rev
+10.0%B
1.11C+
D/E
0.33A-
38.4xC
P/E
28.9xB
0.27A
PEG
1.51C+
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
CLH
ZWS
129% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
24% above
~24%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~13%/yr
-56%
1-yr DCF upside
-27%
-56%
5-yr DCF upside
-19%
-57%
10-yr DCF upside
-7%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CLH
No notable signals flagged.
ZWS
Why this score
Raising its dividend
The companies
CLHClean Harbors, Inc.
Waste Management · $316.93 · beta 0.88
Why now
Waste Management · market cap $16.7b. 6% off the 52-week high of $335.94. PEG 0.27 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $359.73 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
ROE 16% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 104% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 38x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
Pollution & Treatment Controls · market cap $7.7b. 15% off the 52-week high of $55.00. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. 9 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $58.00 (implying +25% upside).
Moat
Net margin 12% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 145% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
ZWS leads CLH by 10 points (67.3 to 57.3), its sharpest advantage coming in D/E (grade A-). A contrarian could still prefer CLH for its stronger PEG (grade A). All screen as growth-type names but sit in different sectors (Waste Management versus Pollution & Treatment Controls), so their grades are relative to different peer sets.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where CLH and ZWS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 24.0 points in favor of ZWS. The widest single difference is Value, where ZWS leads by 25.7 points.
ValueCLH 16.9 · ZWS 42.6ZWS +25.7
GrowthCLH 55.1 · ZWS 78.8ZWS +23.7
QualityCLH 61.8 · ZWS 73.1ZWS +11.3
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is ZWS or CLH the better stock?
ZWS scores higher: ZWS 62.6, CLH 38.6 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do ZWS and CLH differ most?
The widest gap is value, where ZWS leads by 26 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. ZWS leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are ZWS and CLH scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.