RM vs SLM

For growth investors, Regional Management Corp.

(RM) is the stronger pick with 9. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 4. 1% for SLM Corporation (SLM). SLM Corporation (SLM) offers the better valuation at 6. 5x trailing P/E (7. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate SLM Corporation (SLM) a "Buy" — based on 25 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, SLM Corporation (SLM) is the cheapest at 6.

5x versus Regional Management Corp. at 7. 9x. 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 SLM Corporation's 0. 81x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, SLM Corporation (SLM) delivered a total return of +21.

4%, compared to -3. 9% for Regional Management Corp. (RM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: SLM returned +274. 8% 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), SLM Corporation (SLM) is the lower-risk stock at 1.

13β versus Regional Management Corp. 's 1. 40β — meaning RM is approximately 23% more volatile than SLM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, SLM Corporation (SLM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 5% for Regional Management Corp. — 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 4. 1% for SLM Corporation (SLM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: SLM Corporation grew EPS 29. 1% 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.

SLM Corporation (SLM) is the more profitable company, earning 24.

0% net margin versus 6. 9% for Regional Management Corp. — meaning it keeps 24. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: SLM leads at 31. 9% versus 12. 4% for RM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — SLM leads at 53. 1%, 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 SLM Corporation's 0. 81x. 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. 2x for SLM Corporation — 1. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

SLM Corporation (SLM) offers the highest yield at 15. 0%, versus 3. 3% for Regional Management Corp. (RM).

For long-horizon retirement investors, SLM Corporation (SLM) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1.

13), 15. 0% yield, +274. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (SLM: +274. 8%, 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.