Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. WM scored 60.5, CWST scored 39.2 — WM leads.
Compare another set
WM
Waste Management, Inc.
Waste Management · Quality-Growth
60.5
$208.83 · $83.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
21.3
WM leads
CWST
Casella Waste Systems, Inc.
Waste Management · Quality-Growth
39.2
$83.78 · $5.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthCWST+18.0%
Strongest balance sheetCWST0.92
Highest qualityWM80 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
WM
stronger →← stronger
CWST
80
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
33
66
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
87
42
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
21
WM is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
WM
CWST
$3.6bB
FCF
$105mC
+7.2%B
Rev
+18.0%B+
2.35D
D/E
0.92C+
29.6xB
P/E
—
1.92C+
PEG
3.29D
—
P/S
2.7xB
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
CWST
35% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
108% above
~15%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~30%/yr
-32%
1-yr DCF upside
-60%
-26%
5-yr DCF upside
-52%
-16%
10-yr DCF upside
-37%
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
CWST
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
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.
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.
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 CWST diverge
On the headline score the gap is 21.3 points in favor of WM. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityWM 80.4 · CWST 33.5WM +46.9
GrowthWM 66.1 · CWST 87.4CWST +21.3
ValueWM 41.6 · CWST 20.6WM +21.0
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 CWST the better stock?
WM scores higher: WM 60.5, 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 WM and CWST differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where WM leads by 47 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 WM 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.