Waste Management
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
AWX vs USPH vs CWST vs AFCG vs WM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Care Facilities
Waste Management
REIT - Specialty
Waste Management
AWX vs USPH vs CWST vs AFCG vs WM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Waste Management | Medical - Care Facilities | Waste Management | REIT - Specialty | Waste Management |
| Market Cap | $10M | $897M | $5.35B | $73M | $89.32B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $85M | $695M | $1.88B | $6M | $25.41B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $585K | $11M | $7M | $-20M | $2.79B |
| Gross Margin | 15.3% | 22.0% | 17.4% | -76.6% | 32.1% |
| Operating Margin | 3.7% | 12.2% | 4.5% | -124.7% | 18.5% |
| Forward P/E | 30.7x | 20.6x | 63.9x | — | 27.1x |
| Total Debt | $35M | $426M | $1.24B | $76M | $22.91B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $4M | $36M | $124M | $39M | $201M |
AWX vs USPH vs CWST vs AFCG vs WM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Mar 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Avalon Holdings Cor… (AWX) | 100 | 68.9 | -31.1% |
| U.S. Physical Thera… (USPH) | 100 | 56.7 | -43.3% |
| Casella Waste Syste… (CWST) | 100 | 134.4 | +34.4% |
| Advanced Flower Cap… (AFCG) | 100 | 21.5 | -78.5% |
| Waste Management, I… (WM) | 100 | 171.6 | +71.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AWX vs USPH vs CWST vs AFCG vs WM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
AWX ranks third and is worth considering specifically for valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.35 vs WM's 1.97
- PEG 0.35 vs 1.97
USPH is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 5 yrs, beta 0.93, yield 3.1%
CWST is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 18.0%, EPS growth -47.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 19.2%
- 10.6% 10Y total return vs WM's 301.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.32, Low D/E 79.0%, current ratio 1.26x
- Beta 0.32, current ratio 1.26x
AFCG is the clearest fit if your priority is dividends.
- 28.1% yield, vs WM's 1.5%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
WM carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for quality and momentum.
- 11.0% margin vs AFCG's -333.9%
- -4.5% vs AFCG's -35.5%
- 6.1% ROA vs AFCG's -6.4%, ROIC 10.7% vs -4.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 18.0% revenue growth vs AFCG's -39.6% | |
| Value | PEG 0.35 vs 1.97 | |
| Quality / Margins | 11.0% margin vs AFCG's -333.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.32 vs AFCG's 1.86 | |
| Dividends | 28.1% yield, vs WM's 1.5%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | -4.5% vs AFCG's -35.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 6.1% ROA vs AFCG's -6.4%, ROIC 10.7% vs -4.1% |
AWX vs USPH vs CWST vs AFCG vs WM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
AWX vs USPH vs CWST vs AFCG vs WM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
WM leads in 4 of 6 categories
AWX leads 1 • USPH leads 0 • CWST leads 0 • AFCG leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
WM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
WM is the larger business by revenue, generating $25.4B annually — 4261.5x AFCG's $6M. WM is the more profitable business, keeping 11.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to AFCG's -3.3%. On growth, AFCG holds the edge at +64.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $85M | $695M | $1.9B | $6M | $25.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $5M | $107M | $414M | -$16M | $7.7B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $585,000 | $11M | $7M | -$20M | $2.8B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $3M | $67M | $102M | -$24M | $3.3B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +15.3% | +22.0% | +17.4% | -76.6% | +32.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +3.7% | +12.2% | +4.5% | -124.7% | +18.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +0.7% | +1.5% | +0.4% | -3.3% | +11.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +4.0% | +9.6% | +5.5% | -3.9% | +12.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.9% | +7.7% | +9.6% | +64.7% | +3.5% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +15.8% | -115.0% | -18.6% | +16.7% | +13.3% |
Valuation Metrics
AWX leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 30.7x trailing earnings, AWX trades at a 96% valuation discount to CWST's 712.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), AWX offers better value at 0.35x vs WM's 2.41x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $10M | $897M | $5.4B | $73M | $89.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $41M | $1.3B | $6.5B | $110M | $112.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 30.74x | 41.55x | 712.08x | -3.25x | 33.05x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 20.63x | 63.93x | — | 27.06x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.35x | — | — | — | 2.41x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 6.97x | 12.52x | 15.74x | — | 15.00x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.12x | 1.15x | 2.91x | 2.32x | 3.54x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.27x | 1.16x | 3.46x | 0.39x | 8.96x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 4.80x | 14.71x | 63.17x | 6.47x | 31.72x |
Profitability & Efficiency
WM leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
WM delivers a 28.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $29 in annual profit, vs $-11 for AFCG. AFCG carries lower financial leverage with a 0.43x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to WM's 2.29x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), WM scores 7/9 vs AFCG's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +1.6% | +1.4% | +0.5% | -11.1% | +28.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.7% | +0.9% | +0.2% | -6.4% | +6.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +2.2% | +5.6% | +2.6% | -4.1% | +10.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +2.8% | +7.6% | +2.9% | -5.6% | +11.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.94x | 0.55x | 0.79x | 0.43x | 2.29x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $31M | $390M | $1.1B | $38M | $22.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $4M | $36M | $124M | $39M | $201M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $35M | $426M | $1.2B | $76M | $22.9B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 3.09x | 15.42x | 1.12x | -2.15x | 4.89x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
WM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in WM five years ago would be worth $16,680 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $5,539 for AFCG. Over the past 12 months, WM leads with a -4.5% total return vs AFCG's -35.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WM at 10.9% vs USPH's -17.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -9.0% | -24.6% | -13.4% | +10.2% | +1.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -7.0% | -14.3% | -28.9% | -35.5% | -4.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -5.2% | -43.7% | -6.3% | -20.1% | +36.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -43.9% | -43.4% | +25.7% | -44.6% | +66.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +29.1% | +22.6% | +1059.4% | -42.4% | +301.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -1.8% | -17.4% | -2.2% | -7.2% | +10.9% |
Risk & Volatility
WM leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
WM is the less volatile stock with a -0.17 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than AFCG's 1.86 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. WM currently trades 89.2% from its 52-week high vs AWX's 46.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.12x | 0.93x | 0.32x | 1.86x | -0.17x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $5.43 | $93.50 | $121.24 | $5.87 | $248.13 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $2.10 | $58.55 | $74.05 | $2.06 | $194.11 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +46.6% | +63.1% | +70.5% | +52.6% | +89.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 49.2 | 46.1 | 52.8 | 48.2 | 38.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 5K | 171K | 874K | 235K | 1.9M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — AFCG and WM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: USPH as "Buy", CWST as "Buy", WM as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 72.9% upside for USPH (target: $102) vs 14.2% for WM (target: $253). For income investors, AFCG offers the higher dividend yield at 28.10% vs WM's 1.49%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | — | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $102.00 | $119.00 | — | $252.86 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 12 | 19 | — | 35 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +3.1% | — | +28.1% | +1.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 24 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.80 | — | $0.87 | $3.30 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
WM leads in 4 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). AWX leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
AWX vs USPH vs CWST vs AFCG vs WM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AWX or USPH or CWST or AFCG or WM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Casella Waste Systems, Inc.
(CWST) is the stronger pick with 18. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -39. 6% for Advanced Flower Capital Inc. (AFCG). Avalon Holdings Corporation (AWX) offers the better valuation at 30. 7x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate U. S. Physical Therapy, Inc. (USPH) a "Buy" — based on 12 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 — AWX or USPH or CWST or AFCG or WM?
On trailing P/E, Avalon Holdings Corporation (AWX) is the cheapest at 30.
7x versus Casella Waste Systems, Inc. at 712. 1x. On forward P/E, U. S. Physical Therapy, Inc. is actually cheaper at 20. 6x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — AWX or USPH or CWST or AFCG or WM?
Over the past 5 years, Waste Management, Inc.
(WM) delivered a total return of +66. 8%, compared to -44. 6% for Advanced Flower Capital Inc. (AFCG). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CWST returned +1059% versus AFCG's -42. 4%. 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 — AWX or USPH or CWST or AFCG or WM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Waste Management, Inc.
(WM) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 17β versus Advanced Flower Capital Inc. 's 1. 86β — meaning AFCG is approximately -1166% more volatile than WM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Advanced Flower Capital Inc. (AFCG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 43% versus 2% for Waste Management, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — AWX or USPH or CWST or AFCG or WM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Casella Waste Systems, Inc.
(CWST) is pulling ahead at 18. 0% versus -39. 6% for Advanced Flower Capital Inc. (AFCG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Waste Management, Inc. grew EPS -1. 6% year-over-year, compared to -218. 8% for Advanced Flower Capital Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CWST leads at 19. 2% 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 — AWX or USPH or CWST or AFCG or WM?
Waste Management, Inc.
(WM) is the more profitable company, earning 10. 7% net margin versus -66. 0% for Advanced Flower Capital Inc. — meaning it keeps 10. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: WM leads at 18. 3% versus -43. 6% for AFCG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AFCG leads at 90. 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 AWX or USPH or CWST or AFCG or WM more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, U.
S. Physical Therapy, Inc. (USPH) trades at 20. 6x forward P/E versus 63. 9x for Casella Waste Systems, Inc. — 43. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for USPH: 72. 9% to $102. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — AWX or USPH or CWST or AFCG or WM?
In this comparison, AFCG (28.
1% yield), USPH (3. 1% yield), WM (1. 5% yield) pay a dividend. AWX, CWST do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is AWX or USPH or CWST or AFCG or WM better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Waste Management, Inc.
(WM) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 17), 1. 5% yield, +301. 0% 10Y return). Advanced Flower Capital Inc. (AFCG) carries a higher beta of 1. 86 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (WM: +301. 0%, AFCG: -42. 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 AWX and USPH and CWST and AFCG and WM?
These companies operate in different sectors (AWX (Industrials) and USPH (Healthcare) and CWST (Industrials) and AFCG (Real Estate) and WM (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: AWX is a small-cap quality compounder stock; USPH is a small-cap high-growth stock; CWST is a small-cap high-growth stock; AFCG is a small-cap income-oriented stock; WM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. USPH, AFCG, WM pay a dividend while AWX, CWST 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.