Financial - Credit Services
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
PRAA vs FCFS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Credit Services
PRAA vs FCFS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Financial - Credit Services | Financial - Credit Services |
| Market Cap | $834M | $9.92B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.24B | $3.66B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-305M | $354M |
| Gross Margin | 99.2% | 51.7% |
| Operating Margin | 33.9% | 15.4% |
| Forward P/E | 26.6x | 20.9x |
| Total Debt | $32M | $2.82B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $104M | $125M |
PRAA vs FCFS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRA Group, Inc. (PRAA) | 100 | 62.7 | -37.3% |
| FirstCash Holdings,… (FCFS) | 100 | 322.1 | +222.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: PRAA vs FCFS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
PRAA is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 10.4%, EPS growth -5.4%
- 10.4% NII/revenue growth vs FCFS's 8.0%
FCFS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 10 yrs, beta 0.31, yield 0.7%
- 412.4% 10Y total return vs PRAA's -30.6%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.31, current ratio 4.55x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.4% NII/revenue growth vs FCFS's 8.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (20.9x vs 26.6x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs PRAA's 0.7% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.31 vs PRAA's 1.82 | |
| Dividends | 0.7% yield; 10-year raise streak; the other pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +67.0% vs PRAA's +11.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs PRAA's 0.7% |
PRAA vs FCFS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
PRAA vs FCFS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
PRAA leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FCFS is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.7B annually — 3.0x PRAA's $1.2B. FCFS is the more profitable business, keeping 9.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to PRAA's -24.6%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.2B | $3.7B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $431M | $950M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$305M | $354M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$90M | $553M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +99.2% | +51.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +33.9% | +15.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -24.6% | +9.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -7.3% | +12.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +2.1% | +29.9% |
Valuation Metrics
PRAA leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, PRAA's 1.8x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than FCFS's 12.7x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $834M | $9.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $762M | $12.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -2.74x | 30.29x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 26.56x | 20.87x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.28x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 1.77x | 12.70x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.67x | 2.71x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.81x | 4.39x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 21.14x |
Profitability & Efficiency
FCFS leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FCFS delivers a 15.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $16 in annual profit, vs $-26 for PRAA. PRAA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.03x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FCFS's 1.24x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), FCFS scores 7/9 vs PRAA's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -26.0% | +15.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -5.9% | +7.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +11.2% | +9.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +8.7% | +12.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.03x | 1.24x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$72M | $2.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $104M | $125M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $32M | $2.8B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.06x | 4.72x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
FCFS leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in FCFS five years ago would be worth $32,495 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $5,444 for PRAA. Over the past 12 months, FCFS leads with a +67.0% total return vs PRAA's +11.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors FCFS at 29.8% vs PRAA's -14.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +22.3% | +43.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +11.4% | +67.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -38.4% | +118.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -45.6% | +224.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -30.6% | +412.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -14.9% | +29.8% |
Risk & Volatility
FCFS leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
FCFS is the less volatile stock with a 0.31 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than PRAA's 1.82 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FCFS currently trades 98.8% from its 52-week high vs PRAA's 94.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.82x | 0.31x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $22.55 | $227.42 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $10.25 | $119.21 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +94.8% | +98.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 62.5 | 69.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 452K | 338K |
Analyst Outlook
FCFS leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates PRAA as "Hold" and FCFS as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 21.6% upside for PRAA (target: $26) vs 12.1% for FCFS (target: $252). FCFS is the only dividend payer here at 0.71% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $26.00 | $252.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 13 | 19 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 2 | 10 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.59 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.4% | +1.2% |
FCFS leads in 4 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). PRAA leads in 2 (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics).
PRAA vs FCFS: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is PRAA or FCFS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, PRA Group, Inc.
(PRAA) is the stronger pick with 10. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 8. 0% for FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS). FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS) offers the better valuation at 30. 3x trailing P/E (20. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate PRA Group, Inc. (PRAA) a "Hold" — based on 13 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 — PRAA or FCFS?
On forward P/E, FirstCash Holdings, Inc is actually cheaper at 20.
9x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — PRAA or FCFS?
Over the past 5 years, FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS) delivered a total return of +224.
9%, compared to -45. 6% for PRA Group, Inc. (PRAA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: FCFS returned +412. 4% versus PRAA's -30. 6%. 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 — PRAA or FCFS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
31β versus PRA Group, Inc. 's 1. 82β — meaning PRAA is approximately 488% more volatile than FCFS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, PRA Group, Inc. (PRAA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 124% for FirstCash Holdings, Inc — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — PRAA or FCFS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), PRA Group, Inc.
(PRAA) is pulling ahead at 10. 4% versus 8. 0% for FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: FirstCash Holdings, Inc grew EPS 29. 5% year-over-year, compared to -535. 2% for PRA Group, Inc.. 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 — PRAA or FCFS?
FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS) is the more profitable company, earning 9.
0% net margin versus -24. 6% for PRA Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 9. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PRAA leads at 33. 9% versus 15. 4% for FCFS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — PRAA leads at 99. 2%, 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 PRAA or FCFS more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS) trades at 20.
9x forward P/E versus 26. 6x for PRA Group, Inc. — 5. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PRAA: 21. 6% to $26. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — PRAA or FCFS?
In this comparison, FCFS (0.
7% yield) pays a dividend. PRAA does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is PRAA or FCFS better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
31), 0. 7% yield, +412. 4% 10Y return). PRA Group, Inc. (PRAA) carries a higher beta of 1. 82 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (FCFS: +412. 4%, PRAA: -30. 6%), 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 PRAA and FCFS?
Both stocks operate in the Financial Services sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
FCFS pays a dividend while PRAA 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.