Waste Management
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
CHNR vs PLAG vs CLPS vs NRGV
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Packaged Foods
Information Technology Services
Renewable Utilities
CHNR vs PLAG vs CLPS vs NRGV — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Waste Management | Packaged Foods | Information Technology Services | Renewable Utilities |
| Market Cap | $42M | $14M | $25M | $716M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $4M | $299M | $217M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-14M | $-17M | $-4M | $-115M |
| Gross Margin | — | 6.3% | 22.8% | 22.1% |
| Operating Margin | — | -206.6% | -1.4% | -35.8% |
| Total Debt | $0.00 | $2M | $34M | $95M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $3M | $194K | $28M | $58M |
CHNR vs PLAG vs CLPS vs NRGV — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Mar 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| China Natural Resou… (CHNR) | 100 | 5.9 | -94.1% |
| Planet Green Holdin… (PLAG) | 100 | 8.8 | -91.2% |
| CLPS Incorporation (CLPS) | 100 | 17.9 | -82.1% |
| Energy Vault Holdin… (NRGV) | 100 | 42.7 | -57.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CHNR vs PLAG vs CLPS vs NRGV
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CHNR is the clearest fit if your priority is quality.
- 0.0% margin vs PLAG's -430.8%
PLAG lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
CLPS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 3 yrs, beta 0.27, yield 14.6%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.27, Low D/E 58.8%, current ratio 1.58x
- Beta 0.27, yield 14.6%, current ratio 1.58x
- Beta 0.27 vs NRGV's 3.08, lower leverage
NRGV is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 340.9%, EPS growth 28.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 11.8%
- -57.1% 10Y total return vs CLPS's -78.5%
- 340.9% revenue growth vs CHNR's -100.0%
- +447.1% vs CLPS's -5.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 340.9% revenue growth vs CHNR's -100.0% | |
| Quality / Margins | 0.0% margin vs PLAG's -430.8% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.27 vs NRGV's 3.08, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 14.6% yield; 3-year raise streak; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +447.1% vs CLPS's -5.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -3.2% ROA vs PLAG's -138.8%, ROIC -7.9% vs -27.3% |
CHNR vs PLAG vs CLPS vs NRGV — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
CHNR vs PLAG vs CLPS vs NRGV — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CLPS leads in 3 of 6 categories
CHNR leads 1 • NRGV leads 1 • PLAG leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CLPS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CLPS and CHNR operate at a comparable scale, with $299M and $0 in trailing revenue. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from -1.3% (CLPS) to -4.3% (PLAG). On growth, NRGV holds the edge at +156.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $4M | $299M | $217M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$12M | -$7M | -$1M | -$72M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$14M | -$17M | -$4M | -$115M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$6M | -$347M | $0 | -$98M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +6.3% | +22.8% | +22.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | -2.1% | -1.4% | -35.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -4.3% | -1.3% | -53.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -87.6% | -2.3% | -45.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -57.4% | +15.3% | +156.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +91.3% | -193.8% | +75.8% | -42.9% |
Valuation Metrics
CLPS leads this category, winning 2 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $42M | $14M | $25M | $716M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $41M | $16M | $31M | $752M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -88.68x | -1.90x | -3.48x | -6.37x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 2.08x | 0.15x | 3.52x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.21x | 1.20x | 0.43x | 7.50x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 15.18x | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
CHNR leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CLPS delivers a -6.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-6 in annual profit, vs $-147 for NRGV. PLAG carries lower financial leverage with a 0.18x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to NRGV's 1.07x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), PLAG scores 6/9 vs CLPS's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -15.7% | -47.1% | -6.1% | -146.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -5.3% | -138.8% | -3.2% | -40.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -0.0% | -27.3% | -7.9% | -49.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -0.0% | -42.2% | -9.8% | -53.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.18x | 0.59x | 1.07x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$3M | $2M | $6M | $36M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $3M | $193,919 | $28M | $58M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $0 | $2M | $34M | $95M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -263.29x | -94.47x | — | -10.33x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NRGV leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in NRGV five years ago would be worth $4,233 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $721 for CHNR. Over the past 12 months, NRGV leads with a +447.1% total return vs CLPS's -5.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NRGV at 34.0% vs CHNR's -41.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +22.2% | -20.0% | -10.3% | -15.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -2.3% | +67.0% | -5.4% | +447.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -79.7% | -63.4% | +0.5% | +140.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -92.8% | -89.6% | -69.3% | -57.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -93.5% | -99.3% | -78.5% | -57.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -41.2% | -28.4% | +0.2% | +34.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CLPS and NRGV each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CLPS is the less volatile stock with a 0.27 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NRGV's 3.08 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. NRGV currently trades 65.2% from its 52-week high vs PLAG's 42.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.12x | 1.36x | 0.27x | 3.08x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $8.20 | $4.49 | $1.88 | $6.35 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $3.16 | $0.47 | $0.80 | $0.65 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +52.4% | +42.8% | +48.2% | +65.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.2 | 60.1 | 49.8 | 53.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 893K | 104K | 15K | 3.7M |
Analyst Outlook
CLPS leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
CLPS is the only dividend payer here at 14.60% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | — | — | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | — | — | $2.75 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | — | — | 7 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +14.6% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 0 | 3 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $0.13 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
CLPS leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). CHNR leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 1 tied.
CHNR vs PLAG vs CLPS vs NRGV: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CHNR or PLAG or CLPS or NRGV a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Energy Vault Holdings, Inc.
(NRGV) is the stronger pick with 340. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -61. 9% for Planet Green Holdings Corp. (PLAG). Analysts rate Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. (NRGV) a "Buy" — based on 7 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 is the better long-term investment — CHNR or PLAG or CLPS or NRGV?
Over the past 5 years, Energy Vault Holdings, Inc.
(NRGV) delivered a total return of -57. 7%, compared to -92. 8% for China Natural Resources, Inc. (CHNR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NRGV returned -57. 1% versus PLAG's -99. 3%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
03Which is safer — CHNR or PLAG or CLPS or NRGV?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), CLPS Incorporation (CLPS) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
27β versus Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. 's 3. 08β — meaning NRGV is approximately 1034% more volatile than CLPS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Planet Green Holdings Corp. (PLAG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 18% versus 107% for Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — CHNR or PLAG or CLPS or NRGV?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Energy Vault Holdings, Inc.
(NRGV) is pulling ahead at 340. 9% versus -61. 9% for Planet Green Holdings Corp. (PLAG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: China Natural Resources, Inc. grew EPS 95. 9% year-over-year, compared to -181. 4% for CLPS Incorporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, NRGV leads at 11. 8% 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.
05Which has better profit margins — CHNR or PLAG or CLPS or NRGV?
China Natural Resources, Inc.
(CHNR) is the more profitable company, earning 0. 0% net margin versus -108. 9% for Planet Green Holdings Corp. — meaning it keeps 0. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CHNR leads at 0. 0% versus -99. 0% for PLAG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NRGV leads at 23. 6%, 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.
06Which pays a better dividend — CHNR or PLAG or CLPS or NRGV?
In this comparison, CLPS (14.
6% yield) pays a dividend. CHNR, PLAG, NRGV do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
07Is CHNR or PLAG or CLPS or NRGV better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, CLPS Incorporation (CLPS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
27), 14. 6% yield). Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. (NRGV) carries a higher beta of 3. 08 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CLPS: -78. 5%, NRGV: -57. 1%), 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.
08What are the main differences between CHNR and PLAG and CLPS and NRGV?
These companies operate in different sectors (CHNR (Industrials) and PLAG (Consumer Defensive) and CLPS (Technology) and NRGV (Utilities)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: CHNR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; PLAG is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CLPS is a small-cap high-growth stock; NRGV is a small-cap high-growth stock. CLPS pays a dividend while CHNR, PLAG, NRGV 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.