Industrial - Pollution & Treatment Controls
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
TOMZ vs CECO vs PESI vs CLH vs CWST
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Industrial - Pollution & Treatment Controls
Waste Management
Waste Management
Waste Management
TOMZ vs CECO vs PESI vs CLH vs CWST — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Industrial - Pollution & Treatment Controls | Industrial - Pollution & Treatment Controls | Waste Management | Waste Management | Waste Management |
| Market Cap | $14M | $2.92B | $207M | $15.04B | $5.35B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $6M | $812M | $59M | $6.06B | $1.88B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-5M | $17M | $-18M | $395M | $7M |
| Gross Margin | 39.8% | 34.3% | 4.1% | 30.0% | 17.4% |
| Operating Margin | -94.2% | 7.6% | -26.3% | 11.2% | 4.5% |
| Forward P/E | — | 48.8x | — | 33.4x | 63.9x |
| Total Debt | $3M | $25M | $4M | $3.45B | $1.24B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $665K | $33M | $12M | $826M | $124M |
TOMZ vs CECO vs PESI vs CLH vs CWST — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| TOMI Environmental … (TOMZ) | 100 | 8.2 | -91.8% |
| CECO Environmental … (CECO) | 100 | 1532.6 | +1432.6% |
| Perma-Fix Environme… (PESI) | 100 | 199.8 | +99.8% |
| Clean Harbors, Inc. (CLH) | 100 | 474.9 | +374.9% |
| Casella Waste Syste… (CWST) | 100 | 167.7 | +67.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: TOMZ vs CECO vs PESI vs CLH vs CWST
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
TOMZ lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
CECO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 38.8%, EPS growth 280.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 22.4%
- 12.8% 10Y total return vs CLH's 496.4%
- PEG 1.14 vs CLH's 1.36
- 38.8% revenue growth vs CLH's 2.4%
Among these 5 stocks, PESI doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
CLH carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for defensive.
- Beta 0.70, current ratio 2.33x
- Lower P/E (33.4x vs 63.9x)
- 6.5% margin vs TOMZ's -91.4%
- 5.2% ROA vs TOMZ's -64.6%, ROIC 9.8% vs -39.7%
CWST ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.32
- Lower volatility, beta 0.32, Low D/E 79.0%, current ratio 1.26x
- Beta 0.32 vs PESI's 1.85
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 38.8% revenue growth vs CLH's 2.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (33.4x vs 63.9x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 6.5% margin vs TOMZ's -91.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.32 vs PESI's 1.85 | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 5 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +220.1% vs CWST's -28.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.2% ROA vs TOMZ's -64.6%, ROIC 9.8% vs -39.7% |
TOMZ vs CECO vs PESI vs CLH vs CWST — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
TOMZ vs CECO vs PESI vs CLH vs CWST — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CLH leads in 3 of 6 categories
CECO leads 1 • TOMZ leads 0 • PESI leads 0 • CWST leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CLH leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CLH is the larger business by revenue, generating $6.1B annually — 1065.1x TOMZ's $6M. CLH is the more profitable business, keeping 6.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to TOMZ's -91.4%. On growth, CECO holds the edge at +21.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $6M | $812M | $59M | $6.1B | $1.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$5M | $86M | -$14M | $1.1B | $414M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$5M | $17M | -$18M | $395M | $7M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$723,605 | $4M | -$14M | $467M | $102M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +39.8% | +34.3% | +4.1% | +30.0% | +17.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -94.2% | +7.6% | -26.3% | +11.2% | +4.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -91.4% | +2.1% | -30.1% | +6.5% | +0.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -12.7% | +0.5% | -23.4% | +7.7% | +5.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -20.9% | +21.5% | -20.1% | +1.9% | +9.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -91.8% | -110.5% | +9.2% | -18.6% |
Valuation Metrics
CLH leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 38.7x trailing earnings, CLH trades at a 95% valuation discount to CWST's 712.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), CECO offers better value at 1.39x vs CLH's 1.57x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $14M | $2.9B | $207M | $15.0B | $5.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $17M | $2.9B | $200M | $17.7B | $6.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -3.22x | 59.40x | -14.89x | 38.74x | 712.08x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 48.83x | — | 33.43x | 63.93x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.39x | — | 1.57x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 38.01x | — | 15.73x | 15.74x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.83x | 3.77x | 3.36x | 2.49x | 2.91x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.46x | 9.22x | 4.11x | 5.48x | 3.46x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | 34.04x | 63.17x |
Profitability & Efficiency
CLH leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CLH delivers a 14.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $14 in annual profit, vs $-2 for TOMZ. CECO carries lower financial leverage with a 0.08x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CLH's 1.26x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CECO scores 5/9 vs TOMZ's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -2.4% | +5.4% | -34.5% | +14.4% | +0.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -64.6% | +1.9% | -20.2% | +5.2% | +0.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -39.7% | +10.0% | -21.7% | +9.8% | +2.6% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -44.9% | +9.4% | -16.7% | +10.6% | +2.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.73x | 0.08x | 0.09x | 1.26x | 0.79x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2M | -$8M | -$7M | $2.6B | $1.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $664,879 | $33M | $12M | $826M | $124M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $3M | $25M | $4M | $3.4B | $1.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -10.20x | 2.74x | -42.14x | 6.34x | 1.12x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CECO leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CECO five years ago would be worth $110,271 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,237 for TOMZ. Over the past 12 months, CECO leads with a +220.1% total return vs CWST's -28.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CECO at 88.7% vs CWST's -2.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -10.3% | +36.1% | -8.8% | +15.9% | -13.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -14.6% | +220.1% | +26.2% | +26.7% | -28.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +12.5% | +572.0% | +21.7% | +106.2% | -6.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -77.6% | +1002.7% | +45.6% | +198.8% | +25.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -80.3% | +1281.8% | +178.6% | +496.4% | +1059.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +4.0% | +88.7% | +6.8% | +27.3% | -2.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TOMZ and CECO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
TOMZ is the less volatile stock with a -0.06 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than PESI's 1.85 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CECO currently trades 90.2% from its 52-week high vs TOMZ's 59.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.06x | 1.36x | 1.85x | 0.70x | 0.32x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $1.20 | $90.25 | $16.50 | $316.98 | $121.24 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.50 | $24.71 | $8.02 | $201.34 | $74.05 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +59.1% | +90.2% | +67.7% | +89.0% | +70.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 52.9 | 75.7 | 41.5 | 37.9 | 52.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 404K | 673K | 164K | 504K | 874K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — PESI and CWST each lead in 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CECO as "Buy", PESI as "Hold", CLH as "Buy", CWST as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 61.1% upside for PESI (target: $18) vs 5.9% for CECO (target: $86).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $86.20 | $18.00 | $299.33 | $119.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 15 | 1 | 27 | 19 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +1.7% | 0.0% |
CLH leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). CECO leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
TOMZ vs CECO vs PESI vs CLH vs CWST: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is TOMZ or CECO or PESI or CLH or CWST a better buy right now?
For growth investors, CECO Environmental Corp.
(CECO) is the stronger pick with 38. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 2. 4% for Clean Harbors, Inc. (CLH). Clean Harbors, Inc. (CLH) offers the better valuation at 38. 7x trailing P/E (33. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate CECO Environmental Corp. (CECO) a "Buy" — based on 15 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 — TOMZ or CECO or PESI or CLH or CWST?
On trailing P/E, Clean Harbors, Inc.
(CLH) is the cheapest at 38. 7x versus Casella Waste Systems, Inc. at 712. 1x. On forward P/E, Clean Harbors, Inc. is actually cheaper at 33. 4x. 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 Clean Harbors, Inc. 's 1. 36x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — TOMZ or CECO or PESI or CLH or CWST?
Over the past 5 years, CECO Environmental Corp.
(CECO) delivered a total return of +1003%, compared to -77. 6% for TOMI Environmental Solutions, Inc. (TOMZ). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CECO returned +1282% versus TOMZ's -80. 3%. 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 — TOMZ or CECO or PESI or CLH or CWST?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), TOMI Environmental Solutions, Inc.
(TOMZ) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 06β versus Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc. 's 1. 85β — meaning PESI is approximately -3145% more volatile than TOMZ relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, CECO Environmental Corp. (CECO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 8% versus 126% for Clean Harbors, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — TOMZ or CECO or PESI or CLH or CWST?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), CECO Environmental Corp.
(CECO) is pulling ahead at 38. 8% versus 2. 4% for Clean Harbors, Inc. (CLH). 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.
06Which has better profit margins — TOMZ or CECO or PESI or CLH or CWST?
Clean Harbors, Inc.
(CLH) is the more profitable company, earning 6. 5% net margin versus -57. 8% for TOMI Environmental Solutions, Inc. — meaning it keeps 6. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CLH leads at 11. 2% versus -53. 0% for TOMZ. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — TOMZ leads at 46. 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 TOMZ or CECO or PESI or CLH 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, CECO Environmental Corp. (CECO) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 14x versus Clean Harbors, Inc. 's 1. 36x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Clean Harbors, Inc. (CLH) trades at 33. 4x forward P/E versus 63. 9x for Casella Waste Systems, Inc. — 30. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PESI: 61. 1% to $18. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — TOMZ or CECO or PESI or CLH or CWST?
None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.
All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.
09Is TOMZ or CECO or PESI or CLH or CWST better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Casella Waste Systems, Inc.
(CWST) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 32), +1059% 10Y return). Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc. (PESI) carries a higher beta of 1. 85 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CWST: +1059%, PESI: +178. 6%), 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 TOMZ and CECO and PESI and CLH 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: TOMZ is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CECO is a small-cap high-growth stock; PESI is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CLH is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; CWST is a small-cap high-growth stock. 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.