Financial - Credit Services
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
RM vs PRAA vs WRLD vs FCFS vs OMF
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Credit Services
Financial - Credit Services
Financial - Credit Services
Financial - Credit Services
RM vs PRAA vs WRLD vs FCFS vs OMF — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Financial - Credit Services | Financial - Credit Services | Financial - Credit Services | Financial - Credit Services | Financial - Credit Services |
| Market Cap | $329M | $803M | $753M | $9.93B | $6.52B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $646M | $1.24B | $565M | $3.66B | $6.24B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $49M | $-305M | $43M | $354M | $796M |
| Gross Margin | 52.3% | 99.2% | 70.0% | 51.7% | 47.6% |
| Operating Margin | 12.4% | 33.9% | 28.1% | 15.4% | 16.0% |
| Forward P/E | 6.3x | 25.9x | 21.1x | 20.9x | 7.5x |
| Total Debt | $1.73B | $32M | $526M | $2.82B | $22.69B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $98M | $104M | $10M | $125M | $914M |
RM vs PRAA vs WRLD vs FCFS vs OMF — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regional Management… (RM) | 100 | 220.5 | +120.5% |
| PRA Group, Inc. (PRAA) | 100 | 61.2 | -38.8% |
| World Acceptance Co… (WRLD) | 100 | 224.9 | +124.9% |
| FirstCash Holdings,… (FCFS) | 100 | 322.3 | +222.3% |
| OneMain Holdings, I… (OMF) | 100 | 238.7 | +138.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: RM vs PRAA vs WRLD vs FCFS vs OMF
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
RM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.48 vs OMF's 1.92
- Lower P/E (6.3x vs 7.5x), PEG 0.48 vs 1.92
PRAA is the clearest fit if your priority is growth.
- 10.4% NII/revenue growth vs WRLD's -1.5%
WRLD is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night and bank quality.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.27, current ratio 12.55x
- NIM 41.9% vs OMF's 15.3%
FCFS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Dividend streak 10 yrs, beta 0.31, yield 0.7%
- 397.9% 10Y total return vs WRLD's 266.2%
- Beta 0.31, yield 0.7%, current ratio 4.55x
- Beta 0.31 vs PRAA's 1.82
OMF carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 9.1%, EPS growth 54.7%
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs PRAA's 0.7% (lower = leaner)
- 4.7% yield, vs FCFS's 0.7%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs PRAA's 0.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.4% NII/revenue growth vs WRLD's -1.5% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.3x vs 7.5x), PEG 0.48 vs 1.92 | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs PRAA's 0.7% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.31 vs PRAA's 1.82 | |
| Dividends | 4.7% yield, vs FCFS's 0.7%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +69.7% vs WRLD's +12.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs PRAA's 0.7% |
RM vs PRAA vs WRLD vs FCFS vs OMF — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
RM vs PRAA vs WRLD vs FCFS vs OMF — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
FCFS leads in 2 of 6 categories
PRAA leads 1 • RM leads 0 • WRLD leads 0 • OMF leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
PRAA leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
OMF is the larger business by revenue, generating $6.2B annually — 11.1x WRLD's $565M. WRLD is the more profitable business, keeping 15.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to PRAA's -24.6%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $646M | $1.2B | $565M | $3.7B | $6.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $117M | $431M | $61M | $950M | $943M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $49M | -$305M | $43M | $354M | $796M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $316M | -$90M | $252M | $553M | $3.2B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +52.3% | +99.2% | +70.0% | +51.7% | +47.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +12.4% | +33.9% | +28.1% | +15.4% | +16.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +6.9% | -24.6% | +15.9% | +9.0% | +12.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +47.1% | -7.3% | +44.3% | +12.8% | +50.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +68.6% | +2.1% | -107.8% | +29.9% | +8.4% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — RM and PRAA each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 7.9x trailing earnings, RM trades at a 74% valuation discount to FCFS's 30.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), WRLD offers better value at 0.26x vs OMF's 2.16x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $329M | $803M | $753M | $9.9B | $6.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.0B | $731M | $1.3B | $12.6B | $28.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 7.86x | -2.68x | 9.17x | 30.31x | 8.49x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 6.28x | 25.94x | 21.15x | 20.89x | 7.54x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.60x | — | 0.26x | 1.28x | 2.16x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 21.34x | 1.69x | 7.53x | 12.70x | 21.98x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.51x | 0.65x | 1.33x | 2.71x | 1.05x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.93x | 0.79x | 1.87x | 4.40x | 1.95x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 1.08x | — | 3.01x | 21.16x | 2.08x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — PRAA and WRLD each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
OMF delivers a 23.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $24 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 OMF's 6.67x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), WRLD scores 9/9 vs PRAA's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +13.2% | -26.0% | +10.8% | +15.9% | +23.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.4% | -5.9% | +4.0% | +7.0% | +2.9% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +3.0% | +11.2% | +12.1% | +9.2% | +3.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +4.5% | +8.7% | +16.3% | +12.5% | +3.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 5 | 9 | 7 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 4.65x | 0.03x | 1.20x | 1.24x | 6.67x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.6B | -$72M | $516M | $2.7B | $21.8B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $98M | $104M | $10M | $125M | $914M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.7B | $32M | $526M | $2.8B | $22.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.24x | 0.06x | 1.13x | 4.72x | 0.57x |
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 $30,673 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $5,317 for PRAA. Over the past 12 months, FCFS leads with a +69.7% total return vs WRLD's +12.8%. 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 | -10.1% | +19.5% | +5.5% | +43.7% | -17.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +26.1% | +57.2% | +12.8% | +69.7% | +22.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +44.5% | -39.3% | +32.8% | +121.2% | +87.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -7.6% | -46.8% | +11.3% | +206.7% | +36.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +159.2% | -32.2% | +266.2% | +397.9% | +189.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +13.1% | -15.3% | +9.9% | +30.3% | +23.3% |
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 97.5% 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 | 1.40x | 1.82x | 1.27x | 0.31x | 1.30x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $46.00 | $22.55 | $185.48 | $230.72 | $71.93 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $26.06 | $10.25 | $110.00 | $119.21 | $45.78 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +76.0% | +92.6% | +80.6% | +97.5% | +77.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 43.4 | 61.2 | 53.8 | 73.5 | 45.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 56K | 449K | 160K | 344K | 1.4M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — FCFS and OMF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: RM as "Hold", PRAA as "Hold", WRLD as "Hold", FCFS as "Hold", OMF as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 25.2% upside for OMF (target: $70) vs 12.1% for FCFS (target: $252). For income investors, OMF offers the higher dividend yield at 4.65% vs FCFS's 0.71%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $26.00 | — | $252.00 | $69.71 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 15 | 13 | 10 | 19 | 31 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.3% | — | — | +0.7% | +4.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 2 | — | 10 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.16 | — | — | $1.59 | $2.59 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +7.3% | +2.5% | +7.2% | +1.2% | +2.4% |
FCFS leads in 2 of 6 categories (Total Returns, Risk & Volatility). PRAA leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 3 tied.
RM vs PRAA vs WRLD vs FCFS vs OMF: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is RM or PRAA or WRLD or FCFS or OMF 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 -1. 5% for World Acceptance Corporation (WRLD). 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.
02Which has the better valuation — RM or PRAA or WRLD or FCFS or OMF?
On trailing P/E, Regional Management Corp.
(RM) is the cheapest at 7. 9x versus FirstCash Holdings, Inc at 30. 3x. 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. 92x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — RM or PRAA or WRLD or FCFS or OMF?
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 — RM or PRAA or WRLD or FCFS or OMF?
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 7% for OneMain Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — RM or PRAA or WRLD or FCFS or OMF?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), PRA Group, Inc.
(PRAA) is pulling ahead at 10. 4% versus -1. 5% for World Acceptance Corporation (WRLD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: OneMain Holdings, Inc. grew EPS 54. 7% 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 — RM or PRAA or WRLD or FCFS or OMF?
World Acceptance Corporation (WRLD) is the more profitable company, earning 15.
9% net margin versus -24. 6% for PRA Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 15. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PRAA leads at 33. 9% versus 12. 4% for RM. 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 RM or PRAA or WRLD or FCFS or OMF 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 OneMain Holdings, Inc. 's 1. 92x. 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 OMF: 25. 2% to $69. 71.
08Which pays a better dividend — RM or PRAA or WRLD or FCFS or OMF?
In this comparison, OMF (4.
7% yield), RM (3. 3% yield), FCFS (0. 7% yield) pay a dividend. PRAA, WRLD do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is RM or PRAA or WRLD or FCFS or OMF 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 RM and PRAA and WRLD and FCFS and OMF?
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: RM is a small-cap deep-value stock; PRAA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; WRLD is a small-cap deep-value stock; FCFS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; OMF is a small-cap deep-value stock. RM, FCFS, OMF pay a dividend while PRAA, WRLD 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.