Industrial - Pollution & Treatment Controls
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
TOMZ vs CLH vs CECO vs PESI vs CWST
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Waste Management
Industrial - Pollution & Treatment Controls
Waste Management
Waste Management
TOMZ vs CLH vs CECO vs PESI vs CWST — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Industrial - Pollution & Treatment Controls | Waste Management | Industrial - Pollution & Treatment Controls | Waste Management | Waste Management |
| Market Cap | $16M | $15.52B | $2.93B | $204M | $5.35B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $6M | $6.06B | $812M | $59M | $1.88B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-5M | $395M | $17M | $-18M | $7M |
| Gross Margin | 39.8% | 30.0% | 34.3% | 4.1% | 17.4% |
| Operating Margin | -94.2% | 11.2% | 7.6% | -26.3% | 4.5% |
| Forward P/E | — | 34.5x | 49.1x | — | 62.7x |
| Total Debt | $3M | $3.45B | $25M | $4M | $1.24B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $665K | $826M | $33M | $12M | $124M |
TOMZ vs CLH vs CECO vs PESI 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 | 9.5 | -90.5% |
| Clean Harbors, Inc. (CLH) | 100 | 490.2 | +390.2% |
| CECO Environmental … (CECO) | 100 | 1540.1 | +1440.1% |
| Perma-Fix Environme… (PESI) | 100 | 196.8 | +96.8% |
| Casella Waste Syste… (CWST) | 100 | 167.7 | +67.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: TOMZ vs CLH vs CECO vs PESI 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.
CLH carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for defensive.
- Beta 0.64, current ratio 2.33x
- Lower P/E (34.5x vs 62.7x)
- 6.5% margin vs TOMZ's -91.4%
- 5.2% ROA vs TOMZ's -64.6%, ROIC 9.8% vs -39.7%
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%
- 12.9% 10Y total return vs CLH's 5.2%
- PEG 1.14 vs CLH's 1.40
- 38.8% revenue growth vs CLH's 2.4%
Among these 5 stocks, PESI doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
CWST ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.33
- Lower volatility, beta 0.33, Low D/E 79.0%, current ratio 1.26x
- Beta 0.33 vs PESI's 1.74
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 38.8% revenue growth vs CLH's 2.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (34.5x vs 62.7x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 6.5% margin vs TOMZ's -91.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.33 vs PESI's 1.74 | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 5 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +220.7% vs CWST's -27.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.2% ROA vs TOMZ's -64.6%, ROIC 9.8% vs -39.7% |
TOMZ vs CLH vs CECO vs PESI vs CWST — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
TOMZ vs CLH vs CECO vs PESI 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 2 of 6 categories
CECO leads 1 • TOMZ leads 0 • PESI leads 0 • CWST leads 0 • 3 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 | $6.1B | $812M | $59M | $1.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$5M | $1.1B | $86M | -$14M | $414M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$5M | $395M | $17M | -$18M | $7M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$723,605 | $466M | $4M | -$13M | $102M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +39.8% | +30.0% | +34.3% | +4.1% | +17.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -94.2% | +11.2% | +7.6% | -26.3% | +4.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -91.4% | +6.5% | +2.1% | -30.1% | +0.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -12.7% | +7.7% | +0.5% | -22.0% | +5.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -20.9% | +1.9% | +21.5% | -20.1% | +9.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +9.2% | -91.8% | -110.5% | -18.6% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — CLH and CWST each lead in 2 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 40.0x trailing earnings, CLH trades at a 94% valuation discount to CWST's 712.0x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), CECO offers better value at 1.39x vs CLH's 1.62x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $16M | $15.5B | $2.9B | $204M | $5.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $19M | $18.1B | $2.9B | $197M | $6.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -3.75x | 39.99x | 59.69x | -14.67x | 712.00x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 34.47x | 49.07x | — | 62.70x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.62x | 1.39x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 16.16x | 38.19x | — | 15.74x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.13x | 2.57x | 3.79x | 3.31x | 2.91x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 4.02x | 5.66x | 9.26x | 4.05x | 3.46x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 35.13x | — | — | 63.16x |
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), CLH scores 5/9 vs TOMZ's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -2.4% | +14.4% | +5.4% | -34.5% | +0.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -64.6% | +5.2% | +1.9% | -20.2% | +0.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -39.7% | +9.8% | +10.0% | -21.7% | +2.6% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -44.9% | +10.6% | +9.4% | -16.7% | +2.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.73x | 1.26x | 0.08x | 0.09x | 0.79x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2M | $2.6B | -$8M | -$7M | $1.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $664,879 | $826M | $33M | $12M | $124M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $3M | $3.4B | $25M | $4M | $1.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -10.20x | 6.34x | 2.74x | -42.14x | 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 $112,645 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,738 for TOMZ. Over the past 12 months, CECO leads with a +220.7% total return vs CWST's -27.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CECO at 89.0% vs CWST's -2.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +4.3% | +19.6% | +36.8% | -10.2% | -13.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -1.8% | +28.4% | +220.7% | +15.8% | -27.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +30.8% | +112.9% | +575.3% | +19.8% | -6.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -72.6% | +210.4% | +1026.4% | +46.7% | +26.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -77.1% | +515.7% | +1288.6% | +174.4% | +1059.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +9.4% | +28.6% | +89.0% | +6.2% | -2.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TOMZ and CLH each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
TOMZ is the less volatile stock with a -0.04 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than PESI's 1.74 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CLH currently trades 91.9% from its 52-week high vs PESI's 66.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.04x | 0.64x | 1.34x | 1.74x | 0.33x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $1.20 | $316.98 | $90.25 | $16.50 | $121.04 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.50 | $201.34 | $24.71 | $8.02 | $74.05 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +68.7% | +91.9% | +90.6% | +66.7% | +70.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 58.7 | 34.2 | 65.9 | 35.7 | 54.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 432K | 516K | 653K | 164K | 849K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — PESI and CWST each lead in 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CLH as "Buy", CECO as "Buy", PESI as "Hold", CWST as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 63.6% upside for PESI (target: $18) vs 2.8% for CLH (target: $299).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $299.33 | $86.20 | $18.00 | $112.33 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 28 | 15 | 1 | 19 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
CLH leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). CECO leads in 1 (Total Returns). 3 tied.
TOMZ vs CLH vs CECO vs PESI vs CWST: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is TOMZ or CLH or CECO or PESI 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 40. 0x trailing P/E (34. 5x 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.
02Which has the better valuation — TOMZ or CLH or CECO or PESI or CWST?
On trailing P/E, Clean Harbors, Inc.
(CLH) is the cheapest at 40. 0x versus Casella Waste Systems, Inc. at 712. 0x. On forward P/E, Clean Harbors, Inc. is actually cheaper at 34. 5x. 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. 40x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — TOMZ or CLH or CECO or PESI or CWST?
Over the past 5 years, CECO Environmental Corp.
(CECO) delivered a total return of +1026%, compared to -72. 6% for TOMI Environmental Solutions, Inc. (TOMZ). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CECO returned +1289% versus TOMZ's -77. 1%. 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 CLH or CECO or PESI or CWST?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), TOMI Environmental Solutions, Inc.
(TOMZ) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 04β versus Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc. 's 1. 74β — meaning PESI is approximately -4012% 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 CLH or CECO or PESI 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 CLH or CECO or PESI 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 CLH or CECO or PESI 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. 40x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Clean Harbors, Inc. (CLH) trades at 34. 5x forward P/E versus 62. 7x for Casella Waste Systems, Inc. — 28. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PESI: 63. 6% to $18. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — TOMZ or CLH or CECO or PESI 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 CLH or CECO or PESI 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. 33), +1059% 10Y return). Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc. (PESI) carries a higher beta of 1. 74 — 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: +174. 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.
10What are the main differences between TOMZ and CLH and CECO and PESI 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; CLH is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; CECO is a small-cap high-growth stock; PESI is a small-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.