Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. RSG scored 42.6, ZWS scored 62.6 — ZWS leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. RSG'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.
RSG
Republic Services, Inc.
Waste Management · Quality-Growth
42.6
$216.88 · $66.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
20.0
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)
RSG
stronger →← stronger
ZWS
69
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
73
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
79
22
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
43
ZWS is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
RSG
ZWS
$2.7bB
FCF
$308mC
+3.2%C+
Rev
+10.0%B
1.19C
D/E
0.33A-
30.8xC+
P/E
28.9xB
2.79C
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
RSG
ZWS
48% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
24% above
~17%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~13%/yr
-37%
1-yr DCF upside
-27%
-33%
5-yr DCF upside
-19%
-25%
10-yr DCF upside
-7%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
RSG
Why this score
Raising its dividend
ZWS
Why this score
Raising its dividend
The companies
RSGRepublic Services, Inc.
Waste Management · $216.88 · beta 0.40
Why now
Waste Management · market cap $66.4b. 7% off the 52-week high of $233.42. 24 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $244.63 (implying +13% upside).
Moat
Net margin 13% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 18% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 121% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 31x 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
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 RSG and ZWS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 20.0 points in favor of ZWS. The widest single difference is Growth, where ZWS leads by 28.3 points.
GrowthRSG 50.5 · ZWS 78.8ZWS +28.3
ValueRSG 22.0 · ZWS 42.6ZWS +20.6
QualityRSG 69.5 · ZWS 73.1ZWS +3.6
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 RSG the better stock?
ZWS scores higher: ZWS 62.6, RSG 42.6 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 RSG differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where ZWS leads by 28 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 RSG 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.