Waste Management
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
GFL vs WM vs RSG vs WCN vs CWST
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Waste Management
Waste Management
Waste Management
Waste Management
GFL vs WM vs RSG vs WCN vs CWST — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Waste Management | Waste Management | Waste Management | Waste Management | Waste Management |
| Market Cap | $12.88B | $89.32B | $62.29B | $39.14B | $5.35B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $6.70B | $25.41B | $16.70B | $9.65B | $1.88B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $209M | $2.79B | $2.17B | $1.06B | $7M |
| Gross Margin | 20.6% | 32.1% | 22.8% | 39.1% | 17.4% |
| Operating Margin | 5.5% | 18.5% | 20.0% | 17.6% | 4.5% |
| Forward P/E | 40.0x | 27.1x | 27.8x | 27.9x | 63.9x |
| Total Debt | $7.93B | $22.91B | $596M | $9.40B | $1.24B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $86M | $201M | $76M | $46M | $124M |
GFL vs WM vs RSG vs WCN vs CWST — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| GFL Environmental I… (GFL) | 100 | 194.1 | +94.1% |
| Waste Management, I… (WM) | 100 | 207.4 | +107.4% |
| Republic Services, … (RSG) | 100 | 235.9 | +135.9% |
| Waste Connections, … (WCN) | 100 | 163.3 | +63.3% |
| Casella Waste Syste… (CWST) | 100 | 167.7 | +67.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GFL vs WM vs RSG vs WCN vs CWST
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
GFL ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.20, current ratio 0.58x
- Beta 0.20 vs CWST's 0.32
WM carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 24 yrs, beta -0.17, yield 1.5%
- Beta -0.17, yield 1.5%, current ratio 0.89x
- Lower P/E (27.1x vs 63.9x)
- 1.5% yield, 24-year raise streak, vs GFL's 0.2%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
RSG is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding is your priority.
- 353.8% 10Y total return vs CWST's 10.6%
- 13.0% margin vs CWST's 0.4%
- 6.4% ROA vs CWST's 0.2%, ROIC 13.5% vs 2.6%
WCN is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.70 vs WM's 1.97
CWST is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 18.0%, EPS growth -47.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 19.2%
- 18.0% revenue growth vs RSG's 3.5%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 18.0% revenue growth vs RSG's 3.5% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (27.1x vs 63.9x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 13.0% margin vs CWST's 0.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.20 vs CWST's 0.32 | |
| Dividends | 1.5% yield, 24-year raise streak, vs GFL's 0.2%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | -4.5% vs CWST's -28.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 6.4% ROA vs CWST's 0.2%, ROIC 13.5% vs 2.6% |
GFL vs WM vs RSG vs WCN vs CWST — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
GFL vs WM vs RSG vs WCN vs CWST — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
RSG leads in 2 of 6 categories
WM leads 2 • GFL leads 1 • WCN leads 0 • CWST leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — RSG and WCN each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
WM is the larger business by revenue, generating $25.4B annually — 13.5x CWST's $1.9B. RSG is the more profitable business, keeping 13.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CWST's 0.4%. On growth, CWST holds the edge at +9.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $6.7B | $25.4B | $16.7B | $9.6B | $1.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.7B | $7.7B | $5.3B | $2.7B | $414M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $209M | $2.8B | $2.2B | $1.1B | $7M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $87M | $3.3B | $2.6B | $2.2B | $102M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +20.6% | +32.1% | +22.8% | +39.1% | +17.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +5.5% | +18.5% | +20.0% | +17.6% | +4.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +3.1% | +11.0% | +13.0% | +11.0% | +0.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +1.3% | +12.9% | +15.5% | +23.1% | +5.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +5.4% | +3.5% | +2.6% | +6.4% | +9.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -107.3% | +13.3% | +7.6% | -7.5% | -18.6% |
Valuation Metrics
GFL leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 5.1x trailing earnings, GFL trades at a 99% valuation discount to CWST's 712.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), WCN offers better value at 0.92x vs WM's 2.41x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $12.9B | $89.3B | $62.3B | $39.1B | $5.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $18.6B | $112.0B | $62.8B | $48.5B | $6.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 5.08x | 33.05x | 29.43x | 36.74x | 712.08x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 39.96x | 27.06x | 27.85x | 27.92x | 63.93x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 2.41x | 1.65x | 0.92x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 15.29x | 15.00x | 11.96x | 16.38x | 15.74x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.66x | 3.54x | 3.75x | 4.12x | 2.91x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.57x | 8.96x | 5.25x | 4.79x | 3.46x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 100.62x | 31.72x | 25.86x | 31.54x | 63.17x |
Profitability & Efficiency
RSG leads this category, winning 6 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 $0 for CWST. RSG carries lower financial leverage with a 0.05x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to WM's 2.29x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), GFL scores 8/9 vs CWST's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +2.7% | +28.9% | +18.1% | +12.9% | +0.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.1% | +6.1% | +6.4% | +5.0% | +0.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +1.6% | +10.7% | +13.5% | +7.7% | +2.6% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +2.0% | +11.7% | +11.3% | +9.3% | +2.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.06x | 2.29x | 0.05x | 1.14x | 0.79x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $7.8B | $22.7B | $520M | $9.3B | $1.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $86M | $201M | $76M | $46M | $124M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $7.9B | $22.9B | $596M | $9.4B | $1.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.59x | 4.89x | 8.69x | 5.31x | 1.12x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
RSG leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in RSG five years ago would be worth $19,137 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $11,495 for GFL. Over the past 12 months, WM leads with a -4.5% total return vs CWST's -28.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors RSG at 12.6% vs CWST's -2.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -13.1% | +1.8% | -3.5% | -11.4% | -13.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -27.2% | -4.5% | -19.0% | -21.7% | -28.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +2.4% | +36.5% | +42.9% | +11.0% | -6.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +14.9% | +66.8% | +91.4% | +29.2% | +25.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +124.0% | +301.0% | +353.8% | +253.8% | +1059.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +0.8% | +10.9% | +12.6% | +3.5% | -2.2% |
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 CWST's 0.32 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 CWST's 70.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.20x | -0.17x | -0.15x | -0.03x | 0.32x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $51.70 | $248.13 | $258.75 | $199.00 | $121.24 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $36.17 | $194.11 | $198.24 | $152.76 | $74.05 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +72.0% | +89.2% | +77.9% | +77.2% | +70.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 28.7 | 38.1 | 31.4 | 36.3 | 52.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.1M | 1.9M | 1.4M | 1.4M | 874K |
Analyst Outlook
WM leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GFL as "Buy", WM as "Buy", RSG as "Buy", WCN as "Buy", CWST as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 52.3% upside for GFL (target: $57) vs 14.2% for WM (target: $253). For income investors, WM offers the higher dividend yield at 1.49% vs GFL's 0.16%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $56.67 | $252.86 | $239.78 | $204.08 | $119.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 18 | 35 | 35 | 33 | 19 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.2% | +1.5% | +1.2% | +0.9% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 6 | 24 | 23 | 15 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.08 | $3.30 | $2.37 | $1.32 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +16.9% | 0.0% | +1.4% | +1.3% | 0.0% |
RSG leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). WM leads in 2 (Risk & Volatility, Analyst Outlook). 1 tied.
GFL vs WM vs RSG vs WCN vs CWST: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GFL or WM or RSG or WCN or CWST 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 3. 5% for Republic Services, Inc. (RSG). GFL Environmental Inc. (GFL) offers the better valuation at 5. 1x trailing P/E (40. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate GFL Environmental Inc. (GFL) a "Buy" — based on 18 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 — GFL or WM or RSG or WCN or CWST?
On trailing P/E, GFL Environmental Inc.
(GFL) is the cheapest at 5. 1x versus Casella Waste Systems, Inc. at 712. 1x. On forward P/E, Waste Management, Inc. is actually cheaper at 27. 1x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Waste Connections, Inc. wins at 0. 70x versus Waste Management, Inc. 's 1. 97x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GFL or WM or RSG or WCN or CWST?
Over the past 5 years, Republic Services, Inc.
(RSG) delivered a total return of +91. 4%, compared to +14. 9% for GFL Environmental Inc. (GFL). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CWST returned +1059% versus GFL's +124. 0%. 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 — GFL or WM or RSG or WCN or CWST?
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, Republic Services, Inc. (RSG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 5% versus 2% for Waste Management, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — GFL or WM or RSG or WCN or CWST?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Casella Waste Systems, Inc.
(CWST) is pulling ahead at 18. 0% versus 3. 5% for Republic Services, Inc. (RSG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: GFL Environmental Inc. grew EPS 573. 5% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — GFL or WM or RSG or WCN or CWST?
GFL Environmental Inc.
(GFL) is the more profitable company, earning 58. 0% net margin versus 0. 4% for Casella Waste Systems, Inc. — meaning it keeps 58. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: RSG leads at 20. 0% versus 4. 9% for CWST. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — WCN leads at 39. 0%, 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 GFL or WM or RSG or WCN or CWST more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Waste Connections, Inc. (WCN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 70x versus Waste Management, Inc. 's 1. 97x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. 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 GFL: 52. 3% to $56. 67.
08Which pays a better dividend — GFL or WM or RSG or WCN or CWST?
In this comparison, WM (1.
5% yield), RSG (1. 2% yield), WCN (0. 9% yield), GFL (0. 2% yield) pay a dividend. CWST does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is GFL or WM or RSG or WCN or CWST better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Republic Services, Inc.
(RSG) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 15), 1. 2% yield, +353. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (RSG: +353. 8%, GFL: +124. 0%), 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 GFL and WM and RSG and WCN and CWST?
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: GFL is a mid-cap deep-value stock; WM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; RSG is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; WCN is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; CWST is a small-cap high-growth stock. WM, RSG, WCN pay a dividend while GFL, 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.