RM vs OMF

For growth investors, Regional Management Corp.

(RM) is the stronger pick with 9. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 9. 1% for OneMain Holdings, Inc. (OMF). Regional Management Corp. (RM) offers the better valuation at 7. 9x trailing P/E (6. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate OneMain Holdings, Inc. (OMF) a "Buy" — based on 31 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.

On trailing P/E, Regional Management Corp.

(RM) is the cheapest at 7. 9x versus OneMain Holdings, Inc. at 8. 5x. On forward P/E, Regional Management Corp. is actually cheaper at 6. 3x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Regional Management Corp. wins at 0. 48x versus OneMain Holdings, Inc. 's 1. 93x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, OneMain Holdings, Inc.

(OMF) delivered a total return of +39. 2%, compared to -3. 9% for Regional Management Corp. (RM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: OMF returned +191. 1% versus RM's +161. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), OneMain Holdings, Inc.

(OMF) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 30β versus Regional Management Corp. 's 1. 40β — meaning RM is approximately 7% more volatile than OMF relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Regional Management Corp. (RM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 5% versus 7% for OneMain Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Regional Management Corp.

(RM) is pulling ahead at 9. 7% versus 9. 1% for OneMain Holdings, Inc. (OMF). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: OneMain Holdings, Inc. grew EPS 54. 7% year-over-year, compared to 7. 5% for Regional Management Corp.. 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.

OneMain Holdings, Inc.

(OMF) is the more profitable company, earning 12. 5% net margin versus 6. 9% for Regional Management Corp. — meaning it keeps 12. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: OMF leads at 16. 0% versus 12. 4% for RM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RM leads at 52. 3%, 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.

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, Regional Management Corp. (RM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 48x versus OneMain Holdings, Inc. 's 1. 93x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Regional Management Corp. (RM) trades at 6. 3x forward P/E versus 7. 6x for OneMain Holdings, Inc. — 1. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

OneMain Holdings, Inc. (OMF) offers the highest yield at 4. 6%, versus 3. 3% for Regional Management Corp. (RM).

For long-horizon retirement investors, OneMain Holdings, Inc.

(OMF) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (4. 6% yield, +191. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (OMF: +191. 1%, RM: +161. 7%), 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.

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.

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.