Regis Corporation
Regis Corporation (RGS) Stock Competitors & Peer Comparison
See (RGS) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Personal Products & Services Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RGS | $18.93 | +1.23% | 46.3M | 0.50 | $37.87 | N/A |
| ROL | $57.74 | +0.82% | 28B | 57.17 | $1.01 | +1.12% |
| SCI | $77.83 | +1.99% | 11.1B | 21.15 | $3.68 | +1.59% |
| HRB | $54.48 | +0.26% | 7.3B | 13.52 | $4.03 | +2.75% |
| BFAM | $125.10 | +10.61% | 7.2B | 45.14 | $2.77 | N/A |
| FTDR | $58.10 | -0.68% | 4.3B | 18.92 | $3.07 | N/A |
| WW | $42.99 | +1.61% | 3.5B | -49.99 | -$0.86 | N/A |
| DSEY | $8.40 | +0.06% | 2.7B | -14.47 | -$0.58 | N/A |
| ROVR | $11.00 | +0.05% | 2B | 183.25 | $0.06 | N/A |
| MCW | $5.71 | -1.13% | 1.9B | 21.96 | $0.26 | N/A |
Stock Comparison
RGS vs ROL Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, ROL has a market cap of 28B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while ROL trades at $57.74.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas ROL's P/E ratio is 57.17. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to ROL's ROE of +0.36%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to ROL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check ROL's competition here
RGS vs SCI Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, SCI has a market cap of 11.1B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while SCI trades at $77.83.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas SCI's P/E ratio is 21.15. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to SCI's ROE of +0.44%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to SCI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check SCI's competition here
RGS vs HRB Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, HRB has a market cap of 7.3B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while HRB trades at $54.48.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas HRB's P/E ratio is 13.52. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to HRB's ROE of -1.68%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to HRB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check HRB's competition here
RGS vs BFAM Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, BFAM has a market cap of 7.2B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while BFAM trades at $125.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas BFAM's P/E ratio is 45.14. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to BFAM's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to BFAM. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check BFAM's competition here
RGS vs FTDR Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, FTDR has a market cap of 4.3B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while FTDR trades at $58.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas FTDR's P/E ratio is 18.92. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to FTDR's ROE of +1.04%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to FTDR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check FTDR's competition here
RGS vs WW Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, WW has a market cap of 3.5B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while WW trades at $42.99.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas WW's P/E ratio is -49.99. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to WW's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to WW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check WW's competition here
RGS vs DSEY Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, DSEY has a market cap of 2.7B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while DSEY trades at $8.40.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas DSEY's P/E ratio is -14.47. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to DSEY's ROE of -0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to DSEY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check DSEY's competition here
RGS vs ROVR Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, ROVR has a market cap of 2B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while ROVR trades at $11.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas ROVR's P/E ratio is 183.25. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to ROVR's ROE of -0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to ROVR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check ROVR's competition here
RGS vs MCW Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, MCW has a market cap of 1.9B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while MCW trades at $5.71.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas MCW's P/E ratio is 21.96. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to MCW's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to MCW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check MCW's competition here
RGS vs CSV Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, CSV has a market cap of 710.1M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while CSV trades at $45.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas CSV's P/E ratio is 15.13. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to CSV's ROE of +0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to CSV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check CSV's competition here
RGS vs MED Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, MED has a market cap of 151.1M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while MED trades at $13.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas MED's P/E ratio is -21.48. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to MED's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to MED. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check MED's competition here
RGS vs EM Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, EM has a market cap of 146.4M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while EM trades at $1.16.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas EM's P/E ratio is -115.50. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to EM's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to EM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check EM's competition here
RGS vs YYGH Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, YYGH has a market cap of 95.2M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while YYGH trades at $2.49.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas YYGH's P/E ratio is -17.77. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to YYGH's ROE of -0.78%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to YYGH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check YYGH's competition here
RGS vs XSPA Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, XSPA has a market cap of 54.5M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while XSPA trades at $0.66.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas XSPA's P/E ratio is 21.83. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to XSPA's ROE of -3.60%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to XSPA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check XSPA's competition here
RGS vs MRM Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, MRM has a market cap of 6M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while MRM trades at $1.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas MRM's P/E ratio is 6.42. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to MRM's ROE of +0.52%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to MRM. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check MRM's competition here
RGS vs TRNR Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, TRNR has a market cap of 6M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while TRNR trades at $4.23.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas TRNR's P/E ratio is -0.11. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to TRNR's ROE of -4.45%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to TRNR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check TRNR's competition here
RGS vs XWEL Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, XWEL has a market cap of 5.8M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while XWEL trades at $1.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas XWEL's P/E ratio is -0.25. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to XWEL's ROE of -8.39%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to XWEL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check XWEL's competition here
RGS vs EJH Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, EJH has a market cap of 5.6M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while EJH trades at $1.53.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas EJH's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to EJH's ROE of -0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to EJH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check EJH's competition here
RGS vs IVP Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, IVP has a market cap of 1.9M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while IVP trades at $0.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas IVP's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to IVP's ROE of -11.83%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to IVP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check IVP's competition here
RGS vs STON Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, STON has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while STON trades at $3.53.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas STON's P/E ratio is -6.64. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to STON's ROE of +0.48%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to STON. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check STON's competition here
RGS vs TMX Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, TMX has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while TMX trades at $37.87.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas TMX's P/E ratio is 70.13. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to TMX's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to TMX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check TMX's competition here
RGS vs NEBCU Comparison August 2025
RGS plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, RGS stands at 46.3M. In comparison, NEBCU has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $18.93, while NEBCU trades at $11.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
RGS currently has a P/E ratio of 0.50, whereas NEBCU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +1.58%, compared to NEBCU's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to NEBCU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check NEBCU's competition here