Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. WM scored 60.5, CLH scored 38.6 — WM leads.
Compare another set
WM
Waste Management, Inc.
Waste Management · Quality-Growth
60.5
$208.83 · $83.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
21.9
WM leads
CLH
Clean Harbors, Inc.
Waste Management · Quality-Growth
38.6
$316.93 · $16.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestWM29.6x
Fastest growthWM+7.2%
Strongest balance sheetCLH1.11
Highest qualityWM80 / 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)
WM
stronger →← stronger
CLH
80
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
62
66
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
55
42
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
17
WM is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
WM
CLH
$3.6bB
FCF
$458mC
+7.2%B
Rev
+2.4%C
2.35D
D/E
1.11C+
29.6xB
P/E
38.4xC
1.92C+
PEG
0.27A
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
WM
CLH
35% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
129% above
~15%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~24%/yr
-32%
1-yr DCF upside
-56%
-26%
5-yr DCF upside
-56%
-16%
10-yr DCF upside
-57%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
WM
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
CLH
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
WMWaste Management, Inc.
Waste Management · $208.83 · beta 0.43
Why now
Waste Management · market cap $83.5b. 16% off the 52-week high of $248.13. 25 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $255.56 (implying +22% upside).
Moat
ROE 29% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 125% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $83.5b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
D/E 2.35 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer.
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.
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 WM and CLH diverge
On the headline score the gap is 21.9 points in favor of WM. The widest single difference is Value, where WM leads by 24.7 points.
ValueWM 41.6 · CLH 16.9WM +24.7
QualityWM 80.4 · CLH 61.8WM +18.6
GrowthWM 66.1 · CLH 55.1WM +11.0
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 WM or CLH the better stock?
WM scores higher: WM 60.5, 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 WM and CLH differ most?
The widest gap is value, where WM leads by 25 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. WM leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are WM 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.