Oil & Gas Exploration & Production
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
VET vs MEG vs JPM vs BAC vs CLH
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Waste Management
Banks - Diversified
Banks - Diversified
Waste Management
VET vs MEG vs JPM vs BAC vs CLH — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Oil & Gas Exploration & Production | Waste Management | Banks - Diversified | Banks - Diversified | Waste Management |
| Market Cap | $1.71B | $566M | $896.00B | $422.78B | $15.34B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.81B | $821M | $280.33B | $191.57B | $6.06B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-814M | $6M | $57.05B | $30.51B | $395M |
| Gross Margin | 35.9% | 39.0% | 60.0% | 56.1% | 30.0% |
| Operating Margin | 20.2% | 2.0% | 25.9% | 19.7% | 11.2% |
| Forward P/E | 11.2x | 122.1x | 14.4x | 12.6x | 33.4x |
| Total Debt | $1.30B | $359M | $942.38B | $365.90B | $3.45B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $19M | $11M | $343.34B | $231.84B | $826M |
VET vs MEG vs JPM vs BAC vs CLH — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jul 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vermilion Energy In… (VET) | 100 | 272.0 | +172.0% |
| Montrose Environmen… (MEG) | 100 | 96.8 | -3.2% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) | 100 | 331.9 | +231.9% |
| Bank of America Cor… (BAC) | 100 | 225.2 | +125.2% |
| Clean Harbors, Inc. (CLH) | 100 | 482.9 | +382.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: VET vs MEG vs JPM vs BAC vs CLH
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
VET carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for value and dividends.
- Lower P/E (11.2x vs 33.4x)
- 4.1% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs JPM's 1.9%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
- +45.6% vs MEG's -33.3%
MEG ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 19.3%, EPS growth 93.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 15.1%
- 19.3% revenue growth vs VET's -15.0%
JPM is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and valuation efficiency.
- 465.8% 10Y total return vs CLH's 451.2%
- PEG 0.81 vs CLH's 1.36
- NIM 2.2% vs BAC's 1.8%
- 20.4% margin vs VET's -44.9%
BAC is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 12 yrs, beta 0.86, yield 2.3%
CLH is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night and defensive is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.60, current ratio 2.33x
- Beta 0.60, current ratio 2.33x
- Beta 0.60 vs MEG's 1.66
- 5.2% ROA vs VET's -13.8%, ROIC 9.8% vs 3.5%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 19.3% revenue growth vs VET's -15.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.2x vs 33.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 20.4% margin vs VET's -44.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.60 vs MEG's 1.66 | |
| Dividends | 4.1% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs JPM's 1.9%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +45.6% vs MEG's -33.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.2% ROA vs VET's -13.8%, ROIC 9.8% vs 3.5% |
VET vs MEG vs JPM vs BAC vs CLH — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
VET vs MEG vs JPM vs BAC vs CLH — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
JPM leads in 2 of 6 categories
CLH leads 1 • VET leads 0 • MEG leads 0 • BAC leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM is the larger business by revenue, generating $280.3B annually — 341.4x MEG's $821M. JPM is the more profitable business, keeping 20.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to VET's -44.9%. On growth, CLH holds the edge at +1.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.8B | $821M | $280.3B | $191.6B | $6.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.2B | $67M | $81.4B | $40.0B | $1.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$814M | $6M | $57.0B | $30.5B | $395M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $301M | $72M | $100.9B | $12.6B | $466M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +35.9% | +39.0% | +60.0% | +56.1% | +30.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +20.2% | +2.0% | +25.9% | +19.7% | +11.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -44.9% | +0.7% | +20.4% | +15.9% | +6.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +16.6% | +8.7% | +36.0% | +6.6% | +7.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -16.4% | -5.2% | — | — | +1.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -10.9% | +45.3% | +16.0% | +18.3% | +9.2% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — VET and MEG each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.7x trailing earnings, BAC trades at a 63% valuation discount to CLH's 39.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), JPM offers better value at 0.90x vs CLH's 1.60x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.7B | $566M | $896.0B | $422.8B | $15.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.6B | $913M | $1.50T | $556.8B | $18.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -3.68x | -111.71x | 16.00x | 14.66x | 39.53x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.20x | 122.09x | 14.40x | 12.56x | 33.44x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.90x | 0.95x | 1.60x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 3.92x | 14.38x | 18.36x | 13.92x | 16.00x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.35x | 0.68x | 3.20x | 2.21x | 2.54x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.08x | 1.22x | 2.47x | 1.39x | 5.60x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 7.32x | 6.21x | 8.88x | 33.52x | 34.73x |
Profitability & Efficiency
CLH leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
JPM delivers a 15.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $16 in annual profit, vs $-34 for VET. VET carries lower financial leverage with a 0.59x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to JPM's 2.60x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BAC scores 7/9 vs VET's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -33.7% | +1.3% | +15.9% | +10.1% | +14.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -13.8% | +0.6% | +1.3% | +0.9% | +5.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +3.5% | +1.3% | +4.5% | +3.5% | +9.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +3.3% | +1.5% | +8.9% | +4.5% | +10.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.59x | 0.80x | 2.60x | 1.21x | 1.26x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.3B | $348M | $599.0B | $134.1B | $2.6B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $19M | $11M | $343.3B | $231.8B | $826M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.3B | $359M | $942.4B | $365.9B | $3.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.53x | 4.67x | 0.74x | 0.48x | 6.34x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
JPM leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CLH five years ago would be worth $30,987 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,136 for MEG. Over the past 12 months, VET leads with a +45.6% total return vs MEG's -33.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors JPM at 33.6% vs MEG's -28.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +31.7% | -37.1% | -0.5% | +1.1% | +18.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +45.6% | -33.3% | +21.8% | +28.1% | +26.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +4.0% | -63.0% | +138.2% | +103.0% | +82.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +41.4% | -68.6% | +118.2% | +47.1% | +209.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -39.7% | -30.1% | +465.8% | +368.2% | +451.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +1.3% | -28.2% | +33.6% | +26.6% | +22.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — VET and BAC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
VET is the less volatile stock with a -0.18 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than MEG's 1.66 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. BAC currently trades 97.3% from its 52-week high vs MEG's 48.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.18x | 1.66x | 0.94x | 0.86x | 0.60x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $14.82 | $32.00 | $337.25 | $57.55 | $316.98 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $7.00 | $14.13 | $262.71 | $43.66 | $201.34 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +75.2% | +48.9% | +95.1% | +97.3% | +90.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 40.9 | 25.8 | 59.1 | 68.3 | 47.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.3M | 444K | 7.0M | 31.7M | 506K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — VET and JPM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: VET as "Hold", MEG as "Buy", JPM as "Buy", BAC as "Buy", CLH as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 215.4% upside for MEG (target: $49) vs -3.7% for VET (target: $11). For income investors, VET offers the higher dividend yield at 4.10% vs MEG's 0.76%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $10.74 | $49.33 | $339.75 | $61.13 | $303.30 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 10 | 12 | 61 | 54 | 28 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +4.1% | +0.8% | +1.9% | +2.3% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 0 | 15 | 12 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.64 | $0.12 | $5.95 | $1.27 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.5% | +21.6% | +3.9% | +5.1% | +1.6% |
JPM leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Total Returns). CLH leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 3 tied.
VET vs MEG vs JPM vs BAC vs CLH: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is VET or MEG or JPM or BAC or CLH a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Montrose Environmental Group, Inc.
(MEG) is the stronger pick with 19. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -15. 0% for Vermilion Energy Inc. (VET). Bank of America Corporation (BAC) offers the better valuation at 14. 7x trailing P/E (12. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Montrose Environmental Group, Inc. (MEG) a "Buy" — based on 12 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 — VET or MEG or JPM or BAC or CLH?
On trailing P/E, Bank of America Corporation (BAC) is the cheapest at 14.
7x versus Clean Harbors, Inc. at 39. 5x. On forward P/E, Vermilion Energy Inc. is actually cheaper at 11. 2x — 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: JPMorgan Chase & Co. wins at 0. 81x versus Clean Harbors, Inc. 's 1. 36x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — VET or MEG or JPM or BAC or CLH?
Over the past 5 years, Clean Harbors, Inc.
(CLH) delivered a total return of +209. 9%, compared to -68. 6% for Montrose Environmental Group, Inc. (MEG). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: JPM returned +465. 8% versus VET's -39. 7%. 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 — VET or MEG or JPM or BAC or CLH?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Vermilion Energy Inc.
(VET) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 18β versus Montrose Environmental Group, Inc. 's 1. 66β — meaning MEG is approximately -1007% more volatile than VET relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Vermilion Energy Inc. (VET) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 59% versus 3% for JPMorgan Chase & Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — VET or MEG or JPM or BAC or CLH?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Montrose Environmental Group, Inc.
(MEG) is pulling ahead at 19. 3% versus -15. 0% for Vermilion Energy Inc. (VET). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Montrose Environmental Group, Inc. grew EPS 93. 7% year-over-year, compared to -1313. 3% for Vermilion Energy Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MEG leads at 15. 1% 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 — VET or MEG or JPM or BAC or CLH?
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) is the more profitable company, earning 20. 4% net margin versus -37. 0% for Vermilion Energy Inc. — meaning it keeps 20. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: JPM leads at 26. 0% versus 1. 5% for MEG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — JPM leads at 59. 9%, 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 VET or MEG or JPM or BAC or CLH 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, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 81x versus Clean Harbors, Inc. 's 1. 36x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Vermilion Energy Inc. (VET) trades at 11. 2x forward P/E versus 122. 1x for Montrose Environmental Group, Inc. — 110. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MEG: 215. 4% to $49. 33.
08Which pays a better dividend — VET or MEG or JPM or BAC or CLH?
In this comparison, VET (4.
1% yield), BAC (2. 3% yield), JPM (1. 9% yield), MEG (0. 8% yield) pay a dividend. CLH does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is VET or MEG or JPM or BAC or CLH better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Vermilion Energy Inc.
(VET) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 18), 4. 1% yield). Montrose Environmental Group, Inc. (MEG) carries a higher beta of 1. 66 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (VET: -39. 7%, MEG: -30. 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.
10What are the main differences between VET and MEG and JPM and BAC and CLH?
These companies operate in different sectors (VET (Energy) and MEG (Industrials) and JPM (Financial Services) and BAC (Financial Services) and CLH (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: VET is a small-cap income-oriented stock; MEG is a small-cap high-growth stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value stock; BAC is a large-cap deep-value stock; CLH is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. VET, MEG, JPM, BAC pay a dividend while CLH does 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.