Compare Stocks

4 / 10
Try these comparisons:

Stock Comparison

CWST vs USPH vs WM vs AFCG

Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.

Live fundamentals10-year financials5-year price chart
CWST
Casella Waste Systems, Inc.

Waste Management

IndustrialsNASDAQ • US
Market Cap$5.35B
5Y Perf.+34.4%
USPH
U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc.

Medical - Care Facilities

HealthcareNYSE • US
Market Cap$897M
5Y Perf.-43.3%
WM
Waste Management, Inc.

Waste Management

IndustrialsNYSE • US
Market Cap$89.32B
5Y Perf.+71.6%
AFCG
Advanced Flower Capital Inc.

REIT - Specialty

Real EstateNASDAQ • US
Market Cap$73M
5Y Perf.-78.5%

CWST vs USPH vs WM vs AFCG — Key Financials

Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.

Company Snapshot
CWST logoCWST
USPH logoUSPH
WM logoWM
AFCG logoAFCG
IndustryWaste ManagementMedical - Care FacilitiesWaste ManagementREIT - Specialty
Market Cap$5.35B$897M$89.32B$73M
Revenue (TTM)$1.88B$695M$25.41B$6M
Net Income (TTM)$7M$11M$2.79B$-20M
Gross Margin17.4%22.0%32.1%-76.6%
Operating Margin4.5%12.2%18.5%-124.7%
Forward P/E63.9x20.6x27.1x
Total Debt$1.24B$426M$22.91B$76M
Cash & Equiv.$124M$36M$201M$39M

CWST vs USPH vs WM vs AFCGLong-Term Stock Performance

Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.

CWST
USPH
WM
AFCG
StockMar 21May 26Return
Casella Waste Syste… (CWST)100134.4+34.4%
U.S. Physical Thera… (USPH)10056.7-43.3%
Waste Management, I… (WM)100171.6+71.6%
Advanced Flower Cap… (AFCG)10021.5-78.5%

Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.

Quick Verdict: CWST vs USPH vs WM vs AFCG

Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.

Bottom line: WM leads in 3 of 7 categories, making it the strongest pick for profitability and margin quality and recent price momentum and sentiment. Casella Waste Systems, Inc. is the stronger pick specifically for growth and revenue expansion and capital preservation and lower volatility. USPH and AFCG also each lead in at least one category. This set spans 3 sectors — these stocks serve different portfolio roles, not just different price points.
CWST
Casella Waste Systems, Inc.
The Growth Play

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
  • 18.0% revenue growth vs AFCG's -39.6%
Best for: growth exposure and long-term compounding
USPH
U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc.
The Income Pick

USPH is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and defensive.

  • Dividend streak 5 yrs, beta 0.93, yield 3.1%
  • Beta 0.93, yield 3.1%, current ratio 1.01x
  • Lower P/E (20.6x vs 27.1x)
Best for: income & stability and defensive
WM
Waste Management, Inc.
The Quality Compounder

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%
Best for: quality and momentum
AFCG
Advanced Flower Capital Inc.
The Real Estate Income Play

AFCG is the clearest fit if your priority is dividends.

  • 28.1% yield, vs WM's 1.5%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
Best for: dividends
See the full category breakdown
CategoryWinnerWhy
GrowthCWST logoCWST18.0% revenue growth vs AFCG's -39.6%
ValueUSPH logoUSPHLower P/E (20.6x vs 27.1x)
Quality / MarginsWM logoWM11.0% margin vs AFCG's -333.9%
Stability / SafetyCWST logoCWSTBeta 0.32 vs AFCG's 1.86
DividendsAFCG logoAFCG28.1% yield, vs WM's 1.5%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
Momentum (1Y)WM logoWM-4.5% vs AFCG's -35.5%
Efficiency (ROA)WM logoWM6.1% ROA vs AFCG's -6.4%, ROIC 10.7% vs -4.1%

CWST vs USPH vs WM vs AFCG — Revenue Breakdown by Segment

How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units

CWSTCasella Waste Systems, Inc.
FY 2025
Collection
74.3%$1.2B
Processing Services
8.9%$144M
Transfer
8.8%$143M
Landfill Revenue
6.1%$98M
Transportation
1.4%$23M
Landfill - Gas To Energy
0.5%$8M
USPHU.S. Physical Therapy, Inc.
FY 2025
Net Patient Revenues
83.3%$650M
Other Revenues Including Management Contract Revenues and Industrial Injury Prevention Services Revenues
16.7%$131M
WMWaste Management, Inc.
FY 2025
Commercial
21.5%$6.5B
Landfill
17.6%$5.3B
Industrial
13.1%$4.0B
Residential
11.8%$3.6B
Other Collection
11.4%$3.5B
Healthcare Solutions
9.7%$3.0B
Transfer
8.7%$2.6B
Other (1)
6.1%$1.9B
AFCGAdvanced Flower Capital Inc.

Segment breakdown not available.

CWST vs USPH vs WM vs AFCG — Financial Metrics

Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.

BEST OVERALLWMLAGGINGAFCG

Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)

WM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.

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.

MetricCWST logoCWSTCasella Waste Sys…USPH logoUSPHU.S. Physical The…WM logoWMWaste Management,…AFCG logoAFCGAdvanced Flower C…
RevenueTrailing 12 months$1.9B$695M$25.4B$6M
EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax$414M$107M$7.7B-$16M
Net IncomeAfter-tax profit$7M$11M$2.8B-$20M
Free Cash FlowCash after capex$102M$67M$3.3B-$24M
Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue+17.4%+22.0%+32.1%-76.6%
Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue+4.5%+12.2%+18.5%-124.7%
Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue+0.4%+1.5%+11.0%-3.3%
FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue+5.5%+9.6%+12.9%-3.9%
Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year+9.6%+7.7%+3.5%+64.7%
EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year-18.6%-115.0%+13.3%+16.7%
WM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.

Valuation Metrics

Evenly matched — USPH and AFCG each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.

At 33.1x trailing earnings, WM trades at a 95% valuation discount to CWST's 712.1x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, USPH's 12.5x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than CWST's 15.7x.

MetricCWST logoCWSTCasella Waste Sys…USPH logoUSPHU.S. Physical The…WM logoWMWaste Management,…AFCG logoAFCGAdvanced Flower C…
Market CapShares × price$5.4B$897M$89.3B$73M
Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash$6.5B$1.3B$112.0B$110M
Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS712.08x41.55x33.05x-3.25x
Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est.63.93x20.63x27.06x
PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate2.41x
EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple15.74x12.52x15.00x
Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue2.91x1.15x3.54x2.32x
Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share3.46x1.16x8.96x0.39x
Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF63.17x14.71x31.72x6.47x
Evenly matched — USPH and AFCG each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.

Profitability & Efficiency

WM leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.

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.

MetricCWST logoCWSTCasella Waste Sys…USPH logoUSPHU.S. Physical The…WM logoWMWaste Management,…AFCG logoAFCGAdvanced Flower C…
ROE (TTM)Return on equity+0.5%+1.4%+28.9%-11.1%
ROA (TTM)Return on assets+0.2%+0.9%+6.1%-6.4%
ROICReturn on invested capital+2.6%+5.6%+10.7%-4.1%
ROCEReturn on capital employed+2.9%+7.6%+11.7%-5.6%
Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–94574
Debt / EquityFinancial leverage0.79x0.55x2.29x0.43x
Net DebtTotal debt minus cash$1.1B$390M$22.7B$38M
Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets$124M$36M$201M$39M
Total DebtShort + long-term debt$1.2B$426M$22.9B$76M
Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense1.12x15.42x4.89x-2.15x
WM leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.

Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)

WM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.

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.

MetricCWST logoCWSTCasella Waste Sys…USPH logoUSPHU.S. Physical The…WM logoWMWaste Management,…AFCG logoAFCGAdvanced Flower C…
YTD ReturnYear-to-date-13.4%-24.6%+1.8%+10.2%
1-Year ReturnPast 12 months-28.9%-14.3%-4.5%-35.5%
3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends-6.3%-43.7%+36.5%-20.1%
5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends+25.7%-43.4%+66.8%-44.6%
10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends+1059.4%+22.6%+301.0%-42.4%
CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return-2.2%-17.4%+10.9%-7.2%
WM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.

Risk & Volatility

WM leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.

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 AFCG's 52.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.

MetricCWST logoCWSTCasella Waste Sys…USPH logoUSPHU.S. Physical The…WM logoWMWaste Management,…AFCG logoAFCGAdvanced Flower C…
Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 5000.32x0.93x-0.17x1.86x
52-Week HighHighest price in past year$121.24$93.50$248.13$5.87
52-Week LowLowest price in past year$74.05$58.55$194.11$2.06
% of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak+70.5%+63.1%+89.2%+52.6%
RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–10052.846.138.148.2
Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded874K171K1.9M235K
WM leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.

Analyst Outlook

Evenly matched — WM and AFCG each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.

Analyst consensus: CWST as "Buy", USPH 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%.

MetricCWST logoCWSTCasella Waste Sys…USPH logoUSPHU.S. Physical The…WM logoWMWaste Management,…AFCG logoAFCGAdvanced Flower C…
Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sellBuyBuyBuy
Price TargetConsensus 12-month target$119.00$102.00$252.86
# AnalystsCovering analysts191235
Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price+3.1%+1.5%+28.1%
Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises15240
Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS$1.80$3.30$0.87
Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap0.0%+0.6%0.0%0.0%
Evenly matched — WM and AFCG each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Key Takeaway

WM leads in 4 of 6 categories — strongest in Income & Cash Flow and Profitability & Efficiency. 2 categories are tied.

Best OverallWaste Management, Inc. (WM)Leads 4 of 6 categories
Loading custom metrics...

CWST vs USPH vs WM vs AFCG: Key Questions Answered

10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily

01

Is CWST or USPH or WM or AFCG 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). Waste Management, Inc. (WM) offers the better valuation at 33. 1x trailing P/E (27. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Casella Waste Systems, Inc. (CWST) a "Buy" — based on 19 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.

02

Which has the better valuation — CWST or USPH or WM or AFCG?

On trailing P/E, Waste Management, Inc.

(WM) is the cheapest at 33. 1x 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.

03

Which is the better long-term investment — CWST or USPH or WM or AFCG?

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.

04

Which is safer — CWST or USPH or WM or AFCG?

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.

05

Which is growing faster — CWST or USPH or WM or AFCG?

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.

06

Which has better profit margins — CWST or USPH or WM or AFCG?

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.

07

Is CWST or USPH or WM or AFCG 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.

08

Which pays a better dividend — CWST or USPH or WM or AFCG?

In this comparison, AFCG (28.

1% yield), USPH (3. 1% yield), WM (1. 5% yield) pay a dividend. CWST does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

09

Is CWST or USPH or WM or AFCG 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.

10

What are the main differences between CWST and USPH and WM and AFCG?

These companies operate in different sectors (CWST (Industrials) and USPH (Healthcare) and WM (Industrials) and AFCG (Real Estate)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: CWST is a small-cap high-growth stock; USPH is a small-cap high-growth stock; WM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; AFCG is a small-cap income-oriented stock. USPH, WM, AFCG pay a dividend while CWST does 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.

Stocks Like

CWST

Quality Business

  • Sector: Industrials
  • Market Cap > $100B
  • Revenue Growth > 5%
Run This Screen
Stocks Like

USPH

Income & Dividend Stock

  • Sector: Healthcare
  • Market Cap > $100B
  • Revenue Growth > 5%
  • Gross Margin > 13%
Run This Screen
Stocks Like

WM

Stable Dividend Mega-Cap

  • Sector: Industrials
  • Market Cap > $100B
  • Net Margin > 6%
  • Dividend Yield > 0.5%
Run This Screen
Stocks Like

AFCG

High-Growth Disruptor

  • Sector: Real Estate
  • Market Cap > $100B
  • Revenue Growth > 32%
  • Dividend Yield > 11.2%
Run This Screen
Custom Screen

Beat Both

Find stocks that outperform CWST and USPH and WM and AFCG on the metrics below

Revenue Growth>
%
(CWST: 9.6% · USPH: 7.7%)
P/E Ratio<
x
(CWST: 712.1x · USPH: 41.5x)

You Might Also Compare

Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.