CWST vs WM

For growth investors, Casella Waste Systems, Inc.

(CWST) is the stronger pick with 18. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 14. 2% for Waste Management, Inc. (WM). 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.

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, Waste Management, Inc. is actually cheaper at 27. 1x.

Over the past 5 years, Waste Management, Inc.

(WM) delivered a total return of +66. 8%, compared to +25. 7% for Casella Waste Systems, Inc. (CWST). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CWST returned +1059% versus WM's +301. 0%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Waste Management, Inc.

(WM) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 17β versus Casella Waste Systems, Inc. 's 0. 32β — meaning CWST is approximately -285% more volatile than WM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Casella Waste Systems, Inc. (CWST) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 79% versus 2% for Waste Management, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Casella Waste Systems, Inc.

(CWST) is pulling ahead at 18. 0% versus 14. 2% for Waste Management, Inc. (WM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Waste Management, Inc. grew EPS -1. 6% year-over-year, compared to -47. 8% for Casella Waste Systems, 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.

Waste Management, Inc.

(WM) is the more profitable company, earning 10. 7% net margin versus 0. 4% for Casella Waste Systems, 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 4. 9% for CWST. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — WM leads at 29. 1%, 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.

On forward earnings alone, Waste Management, Inc.

(WM) trades at 27. 1x forward P/E versus 63. 9x for Casella Waste Systems, Inc. — 36. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CWST: 39. 3% to $119. 00.

In this comparison, WM (1.

5% yield) pays a dividend. CWST does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

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). Both have compounded well over 10 years (WM: +301. 0%, CWST: +1059%), 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.

Both stocks operate in the Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

In terms of investment character: CWST is a small-cap high-growth stock; WM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. WM pays 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.