Industrial - Pollution & Treatment Controls
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
ARQ vs MERC vs CECO vs CLW vs SLVM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Paper, Lumber & Forest Products
Industrial - Pollution & Treatment Controls
Paper, Lumber & Forest Products
Paper, Lumber & Forest Products
ARQ vs MERC vs CECO vs CLW vs SLVM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Industrial - Pollution & Treatment Controls | Paper, Lumber & Forest Products | Industrial - Pollution & Treatment Controls | Paper, Lumber & Forest Products | Paper, Lumber & Forest Products |
| Market Cap | $111M | $74M | $2.92B | $221M | $1.97B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $122M | $1.85B | $812M | $1.54B | $3.43B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-54M | $-528M | $17M | $-27M | $180M |
| Gross Margin | 27.5% | -3.5% | 34.3% | 5.1% | 21.2% |
| Operating Margin | -8.1% | -12.0% | 7.6% | -0.1% | 9.5% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 48.8x | — | 15.6x |
| Total Debt | $37M | $1.61B | $25M | $422M | $804M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $7M | $187M | $33M | $31K | $205M |
ARQ vs MERC vs CECO vs CLW vs SLVM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arq, Inc. (ARQ) | 100 | 40.5 | -59.5% |
| Mercer Internationa… (MERC) | 100 | 9.6 | -90.4% |
| CECO Environmental … (CECO) | 100 | 1156.0 | +1056.0% |
| Clearwater Paper Co… (CLW) | 100 | 35.7 | -64.3% |
| Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) | 100 | 133.8 | +33.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ARQ vs MERC vs CECO vs CLW vs SLVM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ARQ lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
MERC ranks third and is worth considering specifically for dividends.
- 13.5% yield, vs SLVM's 3.4%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
CECO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 38.8%, EPS growth 280.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 22.4%
- 12.8% 10Y total return vs SLVM's 97.9%
- 38.8% revenue growth vs MERC's -8.6%
- +220.1% vs MERC's -64.8%
CLW is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.31, Low D/E 51.1%, current ratio 2.43x
SLVM carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 3 yrs, beta 0.79, yield 3.4%
- Beta 0.79, yield 3.4%, current ratio 1.56x
- Better valuation composite
- 5.2% margin vs ARQ's -43.9%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 38.8% revenue growth vs MERC's -8.6% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 5.2% margin vs ARQ's -43.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.79 vs MERC's 2.06, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 13.5% yield, vs SLVM's 3.4%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +220.1% vs MERC's -64.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 6.7% ROA vs MERC's -24.3%, ROIC 21.6% vs -8.5% |
ARQ vs MERC vs CECO vs CLW vs SLVM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
ARQ vs MERC vs CECO vs CLW vs SLVM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
SLVM leads in 2 of 6 categories
CECO leads 1 • ARQ leads 0 • MERC leads 0 • CLW leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SLVM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SLVM is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.4B annually — 28.1x ARQ's $122M. SLVM is the more profitable business, keeping 5.2% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to ARQ's -43.9%. On growth, CECO holds the edge at +21.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $122M | $1.9B | $812M | $1.5B | $3.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $2M | -$102M | $86M | $69M | $503M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$54M | -$528M | $17M | -$27M | $180M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$2M | -$156M | $4M | -$54M | $106M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +27.5% | -3.5% | +34.3% | +5.1% | +21.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -8.1% | -12.0% | +7.6% | -0.1% | +9.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -43.9% | -28.5% | +2.1% | -1.8% | +5.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -1.7% | -8.4% | +0.5% | -3.5% | +3.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +6.6% | -3.5% | +21.5% | -4.7% | -12.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -136.4% | -91.8% | -110.5% | -37.9% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — CLW and SLVM each lead in 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 6.1x trailing earnings, SLVM trades at a 90% valuation discount to CECO's 59.4x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, SLVM's 4.3x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than ARQ's 39.0x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $111M | $74M | $2.9B | $221M | $2.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $142M | $1.5B | $2.9B | $642M | $2.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -2.04x | -0.15x | 59.40x | -11.04x | 6.09x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 48.83x | — | 15.58x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 1.39x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 38.96x | — | 38.01x | 5.76x | 4.25x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.92x | 0.04x | 3.77x | 0.14x | 0.52x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.64x | 1.09x | 9.22x | 0.27x | 2.17x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — | 7.93x |
Profitability & Efficiency
SLVM leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
SLVM delivers a 18.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $18 in annual profit, vs $-2 for MERC. CECO carries lower financial leverage with a 0.08x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MERC's 23.64x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), SLVM scores 8/9 vs ARQ's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -27.9% | -2.4% | +5.4% | -3.3% | +18.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -20.9% | -24.3% | +1.9% | -1.7% | +6.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -2.8% | -8.5% | +10.0% | +1.2% | +21.6% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -3.8% | -9.7% | +9.4% | +1.4% | +21.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.22x | 23.64x | 0.08x | 0.51x | 0.95x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $31M | $1.4B | -$8M | $422M | $599M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $7M | $187M | $33M | $30,700 | $205M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $37M | $1.6B | $25M | $422M | $804M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -50.07x | -2.78x | 2.74x | -4.32x | 7.03x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CECO leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CECO five years ago would be worth $110,271 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,480 for MERC. Over the past 12 months, CECO leads with a +220.1% total return vs MERC's -64.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CECO at 88.7% vs MERC's -42.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -22.2% | -43.4% | +36.1% | -22.7% | -6.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -29.8% | -64.8% | +220.1% | -47.4% | -23.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +32.1% | -80.4% | +572.0% | -58.2% | +6.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -44.7% | -85.2% | +1002.7% | -56.3% | +97.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -27.4% | -48.2% | +1281.8% | -77.2% | +97.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +9.7% | -42.0% | +88.7% | -25.2% | +2.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CECO and SLVM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
SLVM is the less volatile stock with a 0.79 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than MERC's 2.06 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CECO currently trades 90.2% from its 52-week high vs MERC's 24.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.78x | 2.06x | 1.36x | 1.31x | 0.79x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $7.89 | $4.47 | $90.25 | $30.96 | $60.51 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.54 | $1.00 | $24.71 | $11.73 | $37.09 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +32.8% | +24.8% | +90.2% | +44.2% | +72.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 48.0 | 42.3 | 75.7 | 49.7 | 59.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 946K | 440K | 673K | 198K | 322K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — MERC and SLVM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ARQ as "Buy", MERC as "Hold", CECO as "Buy", CLW as "Buy", SLVM as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 189.6% upside for ARQ (target: $8) vs 5.9% for CECO (target: $86). For income investors, MERC offers the higher dividend yield at 13.51% vs SLVM's 3.38%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $7.50 | $2.25 | $86.20 | $15.50 | $50.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 4 | 9 | 15 | 10 | 2 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +13.5% | — | — | +3.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 3 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.15 | — | — | $1.48 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +7.8% | +3.5% |
SLVM leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). CECO leads in 1 (Total Returns). 3 tied.
ARQ vs MERC vs CECO vs CLW vs SLVM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ARQ or MERC or CECO or CLW or SLVM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, CECO Environmental Corp.
(CECO) is the stronger pick with 38. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -8. 6% for Mercer International Inc. (MERC). Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) offers the better valuation at 6. 1x trailing P/E (15. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Arq, Inc. (ARQ) a "Buy" — based on 4 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — ARQ or MERC or CECO or CLW or SLVM?
On trailing P/E, Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) is the cheapest at 6.
1x versus CECO Environmental Corp. at 59. 4x. On forward P/E, Sylvamo Corporation is actually cheaper at 15. 6x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — ARQ or MERC or CECO or CLW or SLVM?
Over the past 5 years, CECO Environmental Corp.
(CECO) delivered a total return of +1003%, compared to -85. 2% for Mercer International Inc. (MERC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CECO returned +1282% versus CLW's -77. 2%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — ARQ or MERC or CECO or CLW or SLVM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
79β versus Mercer International Inc. 's 2. 06β — meaning MERC is approximately 162% more volatile than SLVM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, CECO Environmental Corp. (CECO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 8% versus 24% for Mercer International Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — ARQ or MERC or CECO or CLW or SLVM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), CECO Environmental Corp.
(CECO) is pulling ahead at 38. 8% versus -8. 6% for Mercer International Inc. (MERC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: CECO Environmental Corp. grew EPS 280. 6% year-over-year, compared to -807. 1% for Arq, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CECO leads at 22. 4% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — ARQ or MERC or CECO or CLW or SLVM?
Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) is the more profitable company, earning 8.
0% net margin versus -43. 7% for Arq, Inc. — meaning it keeps 8. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: SLVM leads at 11. 8% versus -9. 7% for MERC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CECO leads at 32. 7%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is ARQ or MERC or CECO or CLW or SLVM more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) trades at 15.
6x forward P/E versus 48. 8x for CECO Environmental Corp. — 33. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ARQ: 189. 6% to $7. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — ARQ or MERC or CECO or CLW or SLVM?
In this comparison, MERC (13.
5% yield), SLVM (3. 4% yield) pay a dividend. ARQ, CECO, CLW do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is ARQ or MERC or CECO or CLW or SLVM better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
79), 3. 4% yield). Arq, Inc. (ARQ) carries a higher beta of 1. 78 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (SLVM: +97. 9%, ARQ: -27. 4%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between ARQ and MERC and CECO and CLW and SLVM?
These companies operate in different sectors (ARQ (Industrials) and MERC (Basic Materials) and CECO (Industrials) and CLW (Basic Materials) and SLVM (Basic Materials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: ARQ is a small-cap quality compounder stock; MERC is a small-cap income-oriented stock; CECO is a small-cap high-growth stock; CLW is a small-cap quality compounder stock; SLVM is a small-cap deep-value stock. MERC, SLVM pay a dividend while ARQ, CECO, CLW do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.