FCFS
FirstCash Holdings, Inc
Financial - Credit Services
Market Cap$9.99B
5Y Perf.+224.5%
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Try these comparisons:
Stock Comparison
FCFS vs RM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
RM
Regional Management Corp.
Financial - Credit Services
Market Cap$329M
5Y Perf.+120.5%
FCFS vs RM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | FCFS | RM |
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Financial - Credit Services | Financial - Credit Services |
| Market Cap | $9.99B | $329M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $3.66B | $646M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $354M | $49M |
| Gross Margin | 51.7% | 52.3% |
| Operating Margin | 15.4% | 12.4% |
| Forward P/E | 21.0x | 6.3x |
| Total Debt | $2.82B | $1.73B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $125M | $98M |
FCFS vs RM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
FCFS
RM
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| FirstCash Holdings,… (FCFS) | 100 | 324.5 | +224.5% |
| Regional Management… (RM) | 100 | 220.5 | +120.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FCFS vs RM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Bottom line: FCFS leads in 4 of 7 categories, making it the strongest pick for profitability and margin quality and capital preservation and lower volatility. Regional Management Corp. is the stronger pick specifically for growth and revenue expansion and valuation and capital efficiency. As sector peers, any of these can serve as alternatives in the same allocation.
FCFS
FirstCash Holdings, Inc
The Banking Pick
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%
- 401.1% 10Y total return vs RM's 161.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.31, current ratio 4.55x
Best for: income & stability and long-term compounding
RM
Regional Management Corp.
The Banking Pick
RM is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and valuation efficiency.
- Rev growth 9.7%, EPS growth 7.5%
- PEG 0.48 vs FCFS's 0.89
- Beta 1.40, yield 3.3%, current ratio 8.39x
Best for: growth exposure and valuation efficiency
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | RM | 9.7% NII/revenue growth vs FCFS's 8.0% |
| Value | RM | Lower P/E (6.3x vs 21.0x), PEG 0.48 vs 0.89 |
| Quality / Margins | FCFS | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs RM's 0.4% (lower = leaner) |
| Stability / Safety | FCFS | Beta 0.31 vs RM's 1.40, lower leverage |
| Dividends | RM | 3.3% yield, vs FCFS's 0.7% |
| Momentum (1Y) | FCFS | +69.9% vs RM's +27.2% |
| Efficiency (ROA) | FCFS | Efficiency ratio 0.4% vs RM's 0.4% |
FCFS vs RM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
FY 2025
Segment breakdown not available.
FCFS vs RM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
BEST OVERALLFCFSLAGGINGRM
RMRegional Management C…
2leads
FCFSFirstCash Holdings, I…
3leads
6 Total Categories
CATEGORYLEADERvs RMMETRICS WON
Income & Cash FlowRevenue, margins, and cash flow strength
RM3/5
Valuation MetricsMultiples, price ratios, and targets
RM6/7
Profitability & EfficiencyROE, ROIC, leverage, and quality scores
FCFS7/9
Total Returns1Y, 3Y, 5Y total returns with dividends
FCFS6/6
Risk & VolatilityBeta, volatility, and downside exposure
FCFS2/2
Analyst OutlookRatings, price targets, and dividends
Tied
—
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RM 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 — 5.7x RM's $646M. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 9.0% (FCFS) to 6.9% (RM).
| Metric | FCFSFirstCash Holding… | RMRegional Manageme… |
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $3.7B | $646M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $950M | $117M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $354M | $49M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $553M | $316M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +51.7% | +52.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +15.4% | +12.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +9.0% | +6.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +12.8% | +47.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +29.9% | +68.6% |
RM leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
RM leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 7.9x trailing earnings, RM trades at a 74% valuation discount to FCFS's 30.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), RM offers better value at 0.60x vs FCFS's 1.29x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | FCFSFirstCash Holding… | RMRegional Manageme… |
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $10.0B | $329M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $12.7B | $2.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 30.51x | 7.86x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 21.03x | 6.28x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 1.29x | 0.60x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 12.77x | 21.34x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.73x | 0.51x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 4.43x | 0.93x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 21.30x | 1.08x |
RM leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FCFS leads this category, winning 7 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 $13 for RM. FCFS carries lower financial leverage with a 1.24x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to RM's 4.65x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), FCFS scores 7/9 vs RM's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | FCFSFirstCash Holding… | RMRegional Manageme… |
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +15.9% | +13.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +7.0% | +2.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +9.2% | +3.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +12.5% | +4.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.24x | 4.65x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2.7B | $1.6B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $125M | $98M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2.8B | $1.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 4.72x | 1.24x |
FCFS leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
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 $31,559 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $9,611 for RM. Over the past 12 months, FCFS leads with a +69.9% total return vs RM's +27.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors FCFS at 30.6% vs RM's 13.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | FCFSFirstCash Holding… | RMRegional Manageme… |
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +44.7% | -10.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +69.9% | +27.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +122.6% | +44.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +215.6% | -3.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +401.1% | +161.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +30.6% | +13.1% |
FCFS leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
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 RM's 1.40 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FCFS currently trades 99.5% from its 52-week high vs RM's 76.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | FCFSFirstCash Holding… | RMRegional Manageme… |
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.31x | 1.40x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $227.42 | $46.00 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $119.21 | $26.06 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +99.5% | +76.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 72.4 | 42.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 340K | 56K |
FCFS leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — FCFS and RM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates FCFS as "Hold" and RM as "Hold". For income investors, RM offers the higher dividend yield at 3.31% vs FCFS's 0.70%.
| Metric | FCFSFirstCash Holding… | RMRegional Manageme… |
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $252.00 | — |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 19 | 15 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.7% | +3.3% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 10 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.59 | $1.16 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.2% | +7.3% |
Evenly matched — FCFS and RM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Key Takeaway
FCFS leads in 3 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). RM leads in 2 (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
Best OverallFirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS)Leads 3 of 6 categories
Loading custom metrics...
FCFS vs RM: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FCFS or RM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Regional Management Corp.
(RM) is the stronger pick with 9. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 8. 0% for FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS). 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 FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS) a "Hold" — based on 19 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 — FCFS or RM?
On trailing P/E, Regional Management Corp.
(RM) is the cheapest at 7. 9x versus FirstCash Holdings, Inc at 30. 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 FirstCash Holdings, Inc's 0. 89x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — FCFS or RM?
Over the past 5 years, FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS) delivered a total return of +215.
6%, compared to -3. 9% for Regional Management Corp. (RM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: FCFS returned +401. 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.
04Which is safer — FCFS or RM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
31β versus Regional Management Corp. 's 1. 40β — meaning RM is approximately 352% more volatile than FCFS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 124% versus 5% for Regional Management Corp. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — FCFS or RM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Regional Management Corp.
(RM) is pulling ahead at 9. 7% 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 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.
06Which has better profit margins — FCFS or RM?
FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS) is the more profitable company, earning 9.
0% net margin versus 6. 9% for Regional Management Corp. — meaning it keeps 9. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FCFS leads at 15. 4% 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.
07Is 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. 89x. 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 21. 0x for FirstCash Holdings, Inc — 14. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis.
08Which pays a better dividend — FCFS or RM?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Regional Management Corp. (RM) offers the highest yield at 3. 3%, versus 0. 7% for FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS).
09Is 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, +401. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (FCFS: +401. 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.
10What are the main differences between 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: FCFS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; RM is a small-cap deep-value stock. 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.
Revenue Growth>
%
(FCFS: 8.0% · RM: 9.7%)Net Margin>
%
(FCFS: 9.0% · RM: 6.9%)P/E Ratio<
x
(FCFS: 30.5x · RM: 7.9x)You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.