Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CWST scored 39.2, ZWS scored 62.6 — ZWS leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CWST'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.
CWST
Casella Waste Systems, Inc.
Waste Management · Quality-Growth
39.2
$83.78 · $5.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
23.4
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
Fastest growthCWST+18.0%
Strongest balance sheetZWS0.33
Highest qualityZWS73 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
CWST
stronger →← stronger
ZWS
33
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
73
87
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
79
21
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
43
ZWS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CWST
ZWS
$105mC
FCF
$308mC
+18.0%B+
Rev
+10.0%B
0.92C+
D/E
0.33A-
2.7xB
P/S
—
3.29D
PEG
1.51C+
—
P/E
28.9xB
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
CWST
ZWS
108% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
24% above
~30%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~13%/yr
-60%
1-yr DCF upside
-27%
-52%
5-yr DCF upside
-19%
-37%
10-yr DCF upside
-7%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CWST
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
ZWS
Why this score
Raising its dividend
The companies
CWSTCasella Waste Systems, Inc.
Waste Management · $83.78 · beta 0.78
Why now
Waste Management · market cap $5.3b. Down 22% from 52-week high of $107.96 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $108.40 (implying +29% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($325m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Net margin 0.3% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 0% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
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
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
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 CWST and ZWS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 23.4 points in favor of ZWS. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityCWST 33.5 · ZWS 73.1ZWS +39.6
ValueCWST 20.6 · ZWS 42.6ZWS +22.0
GrowthCWST 87.4 · ZWS 78.8CWST +8.6
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 CWST the better stock?
ZWS scores higher: ZWS 62.6, CWST 39.2 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 CWST differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where ZWS leads by 40 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are ZWS and CWST 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.