QRHC vs CLH vs CWST vs CECO vs WM

For growth investors, CECO Environmental Corp.

(CECO) is the stronger pick with 38. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -13. 3% for Quest Resource Holding Corporation (QRHC). Waste Management, Inc. (WM) offers the better valuation at 33. 1x trailing P/E (26. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Clean Harbors, Inc. (CLH) a "Buy" — based on 28 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 26. 3x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: CECO Environmental Corp. wins at 1. 14x versus Waste Management, Inc. 's 1. 91x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.

Over the past 5 years, CECO Environmental Corp.

(CECO) delivered a total return of +1003%, compared to -69. 6% for Quest Resource Holding Corporation (QRHC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CECO returned +1289% versus QRHC's -64. 1%. 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. 21β versus CECO Environmental Corp. 's 1. 34β — meaning CECO is approximately -744% more volatile than WM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, CECO Environmental Corp. (CECO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 8% versus 2% for Waste Management, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), CECO Environmental Corp.

(CECO) is pulling ahead at 38. 8% versus -13. 3% for Quest Resource Holding Corporation (QRHC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: CECO Environmental Corp. grew EPS 280. 6% year-over-year, compared to -47. 8% for Casella Waste Systems, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CECO leads at 22. 4% 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 -6. 1% for Quest Resource Holding Corporation — 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 -0. 1% for QRHC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CECO leads at 32. 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.

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, CECO Environmental Corp. (CECO) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 14x versus Waste Management, Inc. 's 1. 91x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Waste Management, Inc. (WM) trades at 26. 3x forward P/E versus 62. 7x for Casella Waste Systems, Inc. — 36. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CWST: 31. 5% to $112. 33.

In this comparison, WM (1.

5% yield) pays a dividend. QRHC, CLH, CWST, CECO do 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. 21), 1. 5% yield, +291. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (WM: +291. 1%, QRHC: -64. 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.

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: QRHC is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CLH is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; CWST is a small-cap high-growth stock; CECO is a small-cap high-growth stock; WM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. WM pays a dividend while QRHC, CLH, CWST, CECO 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.