Financial - Mortgages
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
ECPG vs PRA vs PRAA vs FCFS vs RM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Property & Casualty
Financial - Credit Services
Financial - Credit Services
Financial - Credit Services
ECPG vs PRA vs PRAA vs FCFS vs RM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Financial - Mortgages | Insurance - Property & Casualty | Financial - Credit Services | Financial - Credit Services | Financial - Credit Services |
| Market Cap | $1.76B | $1.27B | $803M | $9.93B | $329M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.76B | $1.08B | $1.24B | $3.66B | $646M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $296M | $65M | $-305M | $354M | $49M |
| Gross Margin | 69.0% | 25.5% | 99.2% | 51.7% | 52.3% |
| Operating Margin | 35.4% | 8.4% | 33.9% | 15.4% | 12.4% |
| Forward P/E | 6.9x | 21.8x | 25.9x | 20.9x | 6.3x |
| Total Debt | $4.13B | $435M | $32M | $2.82B | $1.73B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $157M | $36M | $104M | $125M | $98M |
ECPG vs PRA vs PRAA vs FCFS vs RM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Encore Capital Grou… (ECPG) | 100 | 258.8 | +158.8% |
| ProAssurance Corpor… (PRA) | 100 | 178.3 | +78.3% |
| PRA Group, Inc. (PRAA) | 100 | 61.2 | -38.8% |
| FirstCash Holdings,… (FCFS) | 100 | 322.3 | +222.3% |
| Regional Management… (RM) | 100 | 220.5 | +120.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ECPG vs PRA vs PRAA vs FCFS vs RM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ECPG carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 33.9%, EPS growth 287.1%
- 33.9% NII/revenue growth vs PRA's -2.7%
- 14.6% margin vs PRAA's -24.6%
- +149.8% vs PRA's +7.2%
PRA ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.05, Low D/E 32.2%, current ratio 1.33x
- Beta 0.05 vs PRAA's 1.82
Among these 5 stocks, PRAA doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
FCFS is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 10 yrs, beta 0.31, yield 0.7%
- 397.9% 10Y total return vs ECPG's 214.3%
- 7.0% ROA vs PRAA's -5.9%, ROIC 9.2% vs 11.2%
RM is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if valuation efficiency and defensive is your priority.
- PEG 0.48 vs FCFS's 0.88
- Beta 1.40, yield 3.3%, current ratio 8.39x
- NIM 22.6% vs PRAA's 18.4%
- Lower P/E (6.3x vs 20.9x), PEG 0.48 vs 0.88
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 33.9% NII/revenue growth vs PRA's -2.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.3x vs 20.9x), PEG 0.48 vs 0.88 | |
| Quality / Margins | 14.6% margin vs PRAA's -24.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.05 vs PRAA's 1.82 | |
| Dividends | 3.3% yield, vs FCFS's 0.7%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +149.8% vs PRA's +7.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 7.0% ROA vs PRAA's -5.9%, ROIC 9.2% vs 11.2% |
ECPG vs PRA vs PRAA vs FCFS vs RM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
ECPG vs PRA vs PRAA vs FCFS vs RM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ECPG leads in 1 of 6 categories
RM leads 1 • PRAA leads 1 • FCFS leads 1 • PRA leads 1 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ECPG leads this category, winning 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FCFS is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.7B annually — 5.7x RM's $646M. ECPG is the more profitable business, keeping 14.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to PRAA's -24.6%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.8B | $1.1B | $1.2B | $3.7B | $646M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $710M | $101M | $431M | $950M | $117M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $296M | $65M | -$305M | $354M | $49M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $166M | -$17M | -$90M | $553M | $316M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +69.0% | +25.5% | +99.2% | +51.7% | +52.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +35.4% | +8.4% | +33.9% | +15.4% | +12.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +14.6% | +6.0% | -24.6% | +9.0% | +6.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +7.2% | -1.6% | -7.3% | +12.8% | +47.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -2.0% | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +100.0% | +2.5% | +2.1% | +29.9% | +68.6% |
Valuation Metrics
RM leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 7.5x trailing earnings, ECPG trades at a 75% valuation discount to FCFS's 30.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), RM offers better value at 0.60x vs FCFS's 1.28x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.8B | $1.3B | $803M | $9.9B | $329M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $5.7B | $1.7B | $731M | $12.6B | $2.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 7.54x | 24.86x | -2.68x | 30.31x | 7.86x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 6.86x | 21.76x | 25.94x | 20.89x | 6.28x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.73x | — | — | 1.28x | 0.60x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 8.79x | 19.46x | 1.69x | 12.70x | 21.34x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.00x | 1.16x | 0.65x | 2.71x | 0.51x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.98x | 0.94x | 0.79x | 4.40x | 0.93x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 13.87x | — | — | 21.16x | 1.08x |
Profitability & Efficiency
PRAA leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ECPG delivers a 30.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $31 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 RM's 4.65x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ECPG scores 7/9 vs PRA's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +30.7% | +5.0% | -26.0% | +15.9% | +13.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +5.6% | +1.2% | -5.9% | +7.0% | +2.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +9.8% | +3.2% | +11.2% | +9.2% | +3.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +12.6% | +4.0% | +8.7% | +12.5% | +4.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 4.23x | 0.32x | 0.03x | 1.24x | 4.65x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $4.0B | $399M | -$72M | $2.7B | $1.6B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $157M | $36M | $104M | $125M | $98M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $4.1B | $435M | $32M | $2.8B | $1.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 3.45x | 4.53x | 0.06x | 4.72x | 1.24x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
FCFS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in FCFS five years ago would be worth $30,673 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $5,317 for PRAA. Over the past 12 months, ECPG leads with a +149.8% total return vs PRA's +7.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors FCFS at 30.3% vs PRAA's -15.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +47.1% | +2.5% | +19.5% | +43.7% | -10.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +149.8% | +7.2% | +57.2% | +69.7% | +26.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +73.1% | +32.0% | -39.3% | +121.2% | +44.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +90.8% | -3.2% | -46.8% | +206.7% | -7.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +214.3% | -18.8% | -32.2% | +397.9% | +159.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +20.1% | +9.7% | -15.3% | +30.3% | +13.1% |
Risk & Volatility
PRA leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
PRA is the less volatile stock with a 0.05 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. PRA currently trades 99.0% from its 52-week high vs RM's 76.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.07x | 0.05x | 1.82x | 0.31x | 1.40x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $92.64 | $24.85 | $22.55 | $230.72 | $46.00 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $32.66 | $22.72 | $10.25 | $119.21 | $26.06 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +88.8% | +99.0% | +92.6% | +97.5% | +76.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 70.6 | 48.4 | 61.2 | 73.5 | 43.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 327K | 793K | 449K | 344K | 56K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — FCFS and RM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ECPG as "Buy", PRA as "Hold", PRAA as "Hold", FCFS as "Hold", RM as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 24.5% upside for PRAA (target: $26) vs -25.5% for PRA (target: $18). For income investors, RM offers the higher dividend yield at 3.31% vs FCFS's 0.71%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $85.00 | $18.33 | $26.00 | $252.00 | — |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 15 | 11 | 13 | 19 | 15 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +0.7% | +3.3% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 2 | 0 | 2 | 10 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $1.59 | $1.16 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +5.1% | 0.0% | +2.5% | +1.2% | +7.3% |
ECPG leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). RM leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
ECPG vs PRA vs PRAA vs FCFS vs RM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ECPG or PRA or PRAA or FCFS or RM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Encore Capital Group, Inc.
(ECPG) is the stronger pick with 33. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -2. 7% for ProAssurance Corporation (PRA). Encore Capital Group, Inc. (ECPG) offers the better valuation at 7. 5x trailing P/E (6. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Encore Capital Group, Inc. (ECPG) a "Buy" — based on 15 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 — ECPG or PRA or PRAA or FCFS or RM?
On trailing P/E, Encore Capital Group, Inc.
(ECPG) is the cheapest at 7. 5x versus FirstCash Holdings, Inc at 30. 3x. On forward P/E, Regional Management Corp. is actually cheaper at 6. 3x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. 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 FirstCash Holdings, Inc's 0. 88x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — ECPG or PRA or PRAA or FCFS or RM?
Over the past 5 years, FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS) delivered a total return of +206.
7%, compared to -46. 8% for PRA Group, Inc. (PRAA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: FCFS returned +397. 9% versus PRAA's -32. 2%. 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 — ECPG or PRA or PRAA or FCFS or RM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), ProAssurance Corporation (PRA) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
05β versus PRA Group, Inc. 's 1. 82β — meaning PRAA is approximately 3690% more volatile than PRA relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, PRA Group, Inc. (PRAA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 5% for Regional Management Corp. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — ECPG or PRA or PRAA or FCFS or RM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Encore Capital Group, Inc.
(ECPG) is pulling ahead at 33. 9% versus -2. 7% for ProAssurance Corporation (PRA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Encore Capital Group, Inc. grew EPS 287. 1% 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 — ECPG or PRA or PRAA or FCFS or RM?
Encore Capital Group, Inc.
(ECPG) is the more profitable company, earning 14. 6% net margin versus -24. 6% for PRA Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 14. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ECPG leads at 35. 4% versus 6. 6% for PRA. 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 ECPG or PRA or PRAA or FCFS or RM more undervalued right now?
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 FirstCash Holdings, Inc's 0. 88x. 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 25. 9x for PRA Group, Inc. — 19. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PRAA: 24. 5% to $26. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — ECPG or PRA or PRAA or FCFS or RM?
In this comparison, RM (3.
3% yield), FCFS (0. 7% yield) pay a dividend. ECPG, PRA, PRAA do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is ECPG or PRA or PRAA or FCFS or RM 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, +397. 9% 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: +397. 9%, PRAA: -32. 2%), 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 ECPG and PRA and PRAA and FCFS and RM?
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.
In terms of investment character: ECPG is a small-cap high-growth stock; PRA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; PRAA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FCFS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; RM is a small-cap deep-value stock. FCFS, RM pay a dividend while ECPG, PRA, PRAA do 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 all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.