Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ZWS scored 62.6, WM scored 60.5 — ZWS leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. WM'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.
ZWS
Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corporation
Pollution & Treatment Controls · Quality-Growth
62.6
$46.57 · $7.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.1
ZWS leads
WM
Waste Management, Inc.
Waste Management · Quality-Growth
60.5
$208.83 · $83.5B
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 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)
ZWS
stronger →← stronger
WM
73
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
80
79
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
66
43
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
42
ZWS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ZWS
WM
$308mC
FCF
$3.6bB
+10.0%B
Rev
+7.2%B
0.33A-
D/E
2.35D
28.9xB
P/E
29.6xB
1.51C+
PEG
1.92C+
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
ZWS
WM
24% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
35% above
~13%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~15%/yr
-27%
1-yr DCF upside
-32%
-19%
5-yr DCF upside
-26%
-7%
10-yr DCF upside
-16%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
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.
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.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model favors ZWS (66.7) over WM (62.5), primarily due to ZWS's superior financial strength, reflected in its A-grade Debt/Equity of 0.33 versus WM's D-grade at 2.35. A contrarian, however, might prefer WM for its higher Quality pillar score of 80 and "Durable high returns" signal, indicating a more established business. Both are assessed by the same model, so no structural caveat applies.
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 ZWS and WM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.1 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.
GrowthZWS 78.8 · WM 66.1ZWS +12.7
QualityZWS 73.1 · WM 80.4WM +7.3
ValueZWS 42.6 · WM 41.6level
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 WM the better stock?
ZWS scores higher: ZWS 62.6, WM 60.5 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 WM differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where ZWS leads by 13 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 WM 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.