CWST vs WCN Stock Comparison
WCN currently leads CWST in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between CWST and WCN?
WCN leads the current stock comparison as Waste Connections, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Casella Waste Systems, Inc. vs Waste Connections, Inc.
WCN leads
WCN leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value. Wall Street currently favors CWST on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support WCN, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Casella Waste Systems, Inc.
Waste Connections, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WCN over CWST, 54 versus 46 as of Oct 22, 2026. WCN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. WCN 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 WCN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. WCN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Casella Waste Systems, Inc. and Waste Connections, 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 WCN 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 43WCN +15
- Value35 vs 42WCN +7
- Risk Resilience42 vs 47WCN +5
- Momentum82 vs 85Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor WCN. WCN’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
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 +3
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
WCN's lead narrowed by 6 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CWST and WCN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WCN (Waste Connections, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
CWST (Casella Waste Systems, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 47.7% against 26.4%.
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
WCNWCN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CWSTCWST on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WCNWCN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
WCNWCN on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 WCN, analyst targets favor CWST. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CWST | WCN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.3% | +12% | CWST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.4% | +12.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 5 | 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 WCN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WCN | 46 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 18.9% vs 8.1%; EPS growth 168.8% vs 32.6%; gross margin 25.4% vs 39.2%; operating margin 4.4% vs 17.1% |
| Valuation | WCN | Value 35 vs 42 |
| Technicals | WCN | Price vs 50-day 2% vs 4.6%; vs 200-day 3% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | WCN | Risk Resilience 42 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | CWST | Target upside 20.3% vs 12% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CWST and WCN 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 8 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 WCN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20WCN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WCN +8
- 46 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- WCN +15
- 38 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- WCN +8
- 32 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- WCN +1
- 41 vs 42
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when WCN 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.
CWST and WCN carry the same 5 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Death Cross Active, BB Upper Band Breach, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
WCN 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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.71%, AIQ +1 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 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to WCN's edge.
- 2CWST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3WCN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 | WCN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.9% | 8.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 168.8% | 32.6% |
| Gross margin | 25.4% | 39.2% |
| Operating margin | 4.4% | 17.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 0.4% | 13.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.91 | 1.21 |
Performance
CWST leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CWST | WCN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9.1% | 8.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.5% | 9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | 0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.6% | 5.8% |
| Year to date | -5% | -3.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 3.7% | -1.7% |
Technicals
WCN has the stronger structure| Metric | CWST | WCN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 71 | 74.9 |
| ADX (14) | 21.9 | 31 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2% | 4.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.7% | 26.4% |
Risk
WCN is the more resilient| Metric | CWST | WCN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.14 | -0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.3 | -0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.5 | -0.2 |
| Max drawdown | -30.2% | -16.5% |
| Current drawdown | -13.3% | -5.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 36.3% | 23.8% |
| 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 WCN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WCN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 54 against CWST's 46. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 WCN the better buy right now?
WCN 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 WCN over CWST?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WCN leads Quality by 15 points; WCN leads Value by 7 points; WCN leads Risk Resilience by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CWST or WCN?
Analyst price targets imply +20.3% upside for CWST and +12% for WCN, so the Street currently favors CWST. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WCN. 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 WCN?
WCN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WCN 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 WCN?
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 WCN?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 WCN?
WCN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WCN on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 WCN?
WCN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 25.4% vs 39.2%; operating margin 4.4% vs 17.1%; ttm roe 0.4% vs 13.2%.
Is WCN's lead over CWST getting stronger or weaker?
WCN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 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 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-08, when WCN moved ahead of CWST.
What would change the CWST vs WCN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CWST closes the Quality gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to WCN's edge; CWST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; WCN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 WCN?
CWST: 2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. WCN: 2 bullish / 3 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 WCN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CWST and WCN 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.