CWST vs RSG Stock Comparison
RSG currently leads CWST in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between CWST and RSG?
RSG leads the current stock comparison as Republic Services, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Casella Waste Systems, Inc. vs Republic Services, Inc.
RSG leads
RSG leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors CWST on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support RSG, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Casella Waste Systems, Inc.
Republic Services, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RSG over CWST, 56 versus 46 as of Oct 22, 2026. RSG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. RSG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CWST. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RSG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. RSG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions. RSG leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Casella Waste Systems, Inc. and Republic Services, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare CWST and RSG against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality28 vs 48RSG +20
- Risk Resilience42 vs 52RSG +10
- Value35 vs 42RSG +7
- Momentum82 vs 86RSG +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor RSG. RSG’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +27
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
RSG's lead narrowed by 7 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CWST and RSG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RSG (Republic Services, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CWST (Casella Waste Systems, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 47.7% against 16.8%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
RSGRSG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CWSTCWST on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RSGRSG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
RSGRSG on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
RSGRSG on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
CWSTCWST on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors RSG, analyst targets favor CWST. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CWST | RSG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.3% | +1.9% | CWST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.4% | +12.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RSG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RSG | 46 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 18.9% vs 7.7%; EPS growth 168.8% vs 8.2%; gross margin 25.4% vs 39.1%; operating margin 4.4% vs 20% |
| Valuation | RSG | Value 35 vs 42 |
| Technicals | RSG | Price vs 50-day 2% vs 5.2%; vs 200-day 3% vs 7.4% |
| Risk Resilience | RSG | Risk Resilience 42 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | CWST | Target upside 20.3% vs 1.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CWST and RSG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 10 points.
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on RSG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20RSG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RSG +10
- 46 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- RSG +18
- 38 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- RSG +8
- 32 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- RSG +10
- 41 vs 51
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 5 when RSG moved ahead of CWST.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only CWST
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.23%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only RSG
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.53%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.1%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
RSG leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 7 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3.06%, AIQ +7 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.14%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1CWST closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to RSG's edge.
- 2CWST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3RSG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | CWST | RSG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.9% | 7.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 168.8% | 8.2% |
| Gross margin | 25.4% | 39.1% |
| Operating margin | 4.4% | 20% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 0.4% | 18.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.91 | 1.19 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CWST | RSG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9.1% | 5.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.5% | 7.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | 7.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.6% | 10.1% |
| Year to date | -5% | 9.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 3.7% | 5% |
Technicals
RSG has the stronger structure| Metric | CWST | RSG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 71 | 79.7 |
| ADX (14) | 21.9 | 25.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2% | 5.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3% | 7.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.7% | 16.8% |
Risk
RSG is the more resilient| Metric | CWST | RSG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.14 | -0.39 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.5 | 0.34 |
| Max drawdown | -30.2% | -14.9% |
| Current drawdown | -13.3% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 36.3% | 19.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CWST or RSG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RSG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 56 against CWST's 46. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is CWST or RSG the better buy right now?
RSG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor RSG over CWST?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RSG leads Quality by 20 points; RSG leads Risk Resilience by 10 points; RSG leads Value by 7 points. RSG leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by CWST simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, CWST or RSG?
Analyst price targets imply +20.3% upside for CWST and +1.9% for RSG, so the Street currently favors CWST. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors RSG. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CWST or RSG?
RSG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RSG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, CWST or RSG?
CWST on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, CWST or RSG?
RSG on the Momentum factor, by 4 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, CWST or RSG?
RSG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RSG on Risk Resilience, by 10 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CWST more profitable than RSG?
RSG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 25.4% vs 39.1%; operating margin 4.4% vs 20%; ttm roe 0.4% vs 18.3%.
Is RSG's lead over CWST getting stronger or weaker?
RSG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-05, when RSG moved ahead of CWST.
What would change the CWST vs RSG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CWST closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to RSG's edge; CWST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; RSG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CWST and RSG?
CWST: 2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. RSG: 6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on CWST is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On RSG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CWST and RSG with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.