Clean Harbors holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across valuation and stability. Rockwool A/S still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Clean Harbors is in better shape — its trend is intact while Rockwool A/S's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Clean Harbors's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
This is not just a one-metric split: both valuation and stability materially support the lead. Clean Harbors, Inc. leads by 19 points on the overall comparison score.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
The strongest overlap appears in recent revenue growth and capital structure.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Clean Harbors, Inc. looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a trailing P/E that is 206 turns lower.
Stability also supports the lead, so the result is broader than one isolated gap.
The lead is built on both valuation and stability — though profitability still provides a counterweight.
Break down the CLH vs ROCK-B.CO comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CLH and ROCK-B.CO each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.