Industrial - Pollution & Treatment Controls
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
TOMZ vs CWST vs CLH vs WM vs RSG
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Waste Management
Waste Management
Waste Management
Waste Management
TOMZ vs CWST vs CLH vs WM vs RSG — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Industrial - Pollution & Treatment Controls | Waste Management | Waste Management | Waste Management | Waste Management |
| Market Cap | $14M | $5.35B | $15.04B | $89.32B | $62.29B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $6M | $1.88B | $6.06B | $25.41B | $16.70B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-5M | $7M | $395M | $2.79B | $2.17B |
| Gross Margin | 39.8% | 17.4% | 30.0% | 32.1% | 22.8% |
| Operating Margin | -94.2% | 4.5% | 11.2% | 18.5% | 20.0% |
| Forward P/E | — | 62.7x | 34.5x | 26.3x | 27.6x |
| Total Debt | $3M | $1.24B | $3.45B | $22.91B | $596M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $665K | $124M | $826M | $201M | $76M |
TOMZ vs CWST vs CLH vs WM vs RSG — 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% |
| Casella Waste Syste… (CWST) | 100 | 167.7 | +67.7% |
| Clean Harbors, Inc. (CLH) | 100 | 490.2 | +390.2% |
| Waste Management, I… (WM) | 100 | 201.8 | +101.8% |
| Republic Services, … (RSG) | 100 | 234.1 | +134.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: TOMZ vs CWST vs CLH vs WM vs RSG
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Among these 5 stocks, TOMZ doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
CWST has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.32, Low D/E 79.0%, current ratio 1.26x
- Beta 0.32, current ratio 1.26x
- 18.0% revenue growth vs CLH's 2.4%
- Beta 0.32 vs CLH's 0.70, lower leverage
CLH is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- 496.4% 10Y total return vs CWST's 10.6%
- PEG 1.40 vs WM's 1.91
- Lower P/E (34.5x vs 62.7x)
- +26.7% vs CWST's -28.9%
WM is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 24 yrs, beta -0.17, yield 1.5%
- Rev growth 14.2%, EPS growth -1.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 8.6%
- 1.5% yield, 24-year raise streak, vs RSG's 1.2%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
RSG ranks third and is worth considering specifically for quality and efficiency.
- 13.0% margin vs TOMZ's -91.4%
- 6.4% ROA vs TOMZ's -64.6%, ROIC 13.5% vs -39.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 18.0% revenue growth vs CLH's 2.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (34.5x vs 62.7x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 13.0% margin vs TOMZ's -91.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.32 vs CLH's 0.70, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 1.5% yield, 24-year raise streak, vs RSG's 1.2%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +26.7% vs CWST's -28.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 6.4% ROA vs TOMZ's -64.6%, ROIC 13.5% vs -39.7% |
TOMZ vs CWST vs CLH vs WM vs RSG — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
TOMZ vs CWST vs CLH vs WM vs RSG — 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 • TOMZ leads 1 • CLH leads 1 • CWST leads 0
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RSG leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
WM is the larger business by revenue, generating $25.4B annually — 4467.6x TOMZ's $6M. RSG is the more profitable business, keeping 13.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to TOMZ's -91.4%. On growth, CWST holds the edge at +9.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $6M | $1.9B | $6.1B | $25.4B | $16.7B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$5M | $414M | $1.1B | $7.7B | $5.3B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$5M | $7M | $395M | $2.8B | $2.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$723,605 | $102M | $467M | $3.3B | $2.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +39.8% | +17.4% | +30.0% | +32.1% | +22.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -94.2% | +4.5% | +11.2% | +18.5% | +20.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -91.4% | +0.4% | +6.5% | +11.0% | +13.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -12.7% | +5.5% | +7.7% | +12.9% | +15.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -20.9% | +9.6% | +1.9% | +3.5% | +2.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -18.6% | +9.2% | +13.3% | +7.6% |
Valuation Metrics
TOMZ leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 29.4x trailing earnings, RSG trades at a 96% valuation discount to CWST's 712.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), CLH offers better value at 1.57x vs WM's 2.41x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $14M | $5.4B | $15.0B | $89.3B | $62.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $17M | $6.5B | $17.7B | $112.0B | $62.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -3.22x | 712.08x | 38.74x | 33.05x | 29.43x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 62.70x | 34.47x | 26.29x | 27.60x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 1.57x | 2.41x | 1.65x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 15.74x | 15.73x | 15.00x | 11.96x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.83x | 2.91x | 2.49x | 3.54x | 3.75x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.46x | 3.46x | 5.48x | 8.96x | 5.25x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 63.17x | 34.04x | 31.72x | 25.86x |
Profitability & Efficiency
RSG leads this category, winning 5 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 $-2 for TOMZ. 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), WM scores 7/9 vs TOMZ's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -2.4% | +0.5% | +14.4% | +28.9% | +18.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -64.6% | +0.2% | +5.2% | +6.1% | +6.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -39.7% | +2.6% | +9.8% | +10.7% | +13.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -44.9% | +2.9% | +10.6% | +11.7% | +11.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.73x | 0.79x | 1.26x | 2.29x | 0.05x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2M | $1.1B | $2.6B | $22.7B | $520M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $664,879 | $124M | $826M | $201M | $76M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $3M | $1.2B | $3.4B | $22.9B | $596M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -10.20x | 1.12x | 6.34x | 4.89x | 8.69x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CLH leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CLH five years ago would be worth $29,882 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,237 for TOMZ. Over the past 12 months, CLH leads with a +26.7% total return vs CWST's -28.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CLH at 27.3% vs CWST's -2.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -10.3% | -13.4% | +15.9% | +1.8% | -3.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -14.6% | -28.9% | +26.7% | -4.5% | -19.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +12.5% | -6.3% | +106.2% | +36.5% | +42.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -77.6% | +25.7% | +198.8% | +66.8% | +91.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -80.3% | +1059.4% | +496.4% | +301.0% | +353.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +4.0% | -2.2% | +27.3% | +10.9% | +12.6% |
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 CLH's 0.70 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 TOMZ's 59.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.04x | 0.33x | 0.64x | -0.21x | -0.18x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $1.20 | $121.24 | $316.98 | $248.13 | $258.75 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.50 | $74.05 | $201.34 | $194.11 | $198.24 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +59.1% | +70.5% | +89.0% | +89.2% | +77.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 52.9 | 52.8 | 37.9 | 38.1 | 31.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 404K | 874K | 504K | 1.9M | 1.4M |
Analyst Outlook
WM leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CWST as "Buy", CLH as "Buy", WM as "Buy", RSG as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 31.5% upside for CWST (target: $112) vs 6.1% for CLH (target: $299). For income investors, WM offers the higher dividend yield at 1.49% vs RSG's 1.17%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $112.33 | $299.33 | $254.67 | $239.89 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 19 | 28 | 35 | 35 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +1.5% | +1.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 1 | 0 | 24 | 23 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $3.30 | $2.37 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +1.7% | 0.0% | +1.4% |
RSG leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). WM leads in 2 (Risk & Volatility, Analyst Outlook).
TOMZ vs CWST vs CLH vs WM vs RSG: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is TOMZ or CWST or CLH or WM or RSG 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 2. 4% for Clean Harbors, Inc. (CLH). Republic Services, Inc. (RSG) offers the better valuation at 29. 4x trailing P/E (27. 6x 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.
02Which has the better valuation — TOMZ or CWST or CLH or WM or RSG?
On trailing P/E, Republic Services, Inc.
(RSG) is the cheapest at 29. 4x versus Casella Waste Systems, Inc. at 712. 1x. On forward P/E, Waste Management, Inc. is actually cheaper at 26. 3x — 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: Clean Harbors, Inc. wins at 1. 40x versus Waste Management, Inc. 's 1. 91x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — TOMZ or CWST or CLH or WM or RSG?
Over the past 5 years, Clean Harbors, Inc.
(CLH) delivered a total return of +198. 8%, compared to -77. 6% for TOMI Environmental Solutions, Inc. (TOMZ). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CWST returned +1059% 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 CWST or CLH or WM or RSG?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Waste Management, Inc.
(WM) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 21β versus Clean Harbors, Inc. 's 0. 64β — meaning CLH is approximately -405% 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 — TOMZ or CWST or CLH or WM or RSG?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Casella Waste Systems, Inc.
(CWST) is pulling ahead at 18. 0% versus 2. 4% for Clean Harbors, Inc. (CLH). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Republic Services, Inc. grew EPS 5. 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 — TOMZ or CWST or CLH or WM or RSG?
Republic Services, Inc.
(RSG) is the more profitable company, earning 12. 9% net margin versus -57. 8% for TOMI Environmental Solutions, Inc. — meaning it keeps 12. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: RSG leads at 20. 0% 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 CWST or CLH or WM or RSG 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, Clean Harbors, Inc. (CLH) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 40x 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.
08Which pays a better dividend — TOMZ or CWST or CLH or WM or RSG?
In this comparison, WM (1.
5% yield), RSG (1. 2% yield) pay a dividend. TOMZ, CWST, CLH do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is TOMZ or CWST or CLH or WM or RSG 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. 18), 1. 2% yield, +350. 5% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (RSG: +350. 5%, CLH: +515. 7%), 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 CWST and CLH and WM and RSG?
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; CWST is a small-cap high-growth stock; CLH is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; WM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; RSG is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. WM, RSG pay a dividend while TOMZ, CWST, CLH 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.