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 | $24.44 | -1.05% | 61.1M | 0.54 | $44.99 | N/A |
| ROL | $53.93 | +0.82% | 25.9B | 49.46 | $1.09 | +1.29% |
| SCI | $84.77 | +2.31% | 11.8B | 22.31 | $3.80 | +1.56% |
| BFAM | $83.81 | +3.18% | 4.7B | 24.94 | $3.36 | N/A |
| HRB | $32.18 | +1.23% | 4.1B | 7.52 | $4.28 | +5.10% |
| CVSA | $117.86 | +1.03% | 4.1B | 17.36 | $6.79 | N/A |
| FTDR | $54.58 | +0.11% | 3.9B | 15.96 | $3.42 | N/A |
| DSEY | $8.40 | +0.06% | 2.7B | -14.47 | -$0.58 | N/A |
| MCW | $6.97 | +0.00% | 2.3B | 22.48 | $0.31 | N/A |
| ROVR | $11.00 | +0.05% | 2B | 183.25 | $0.06 | N/A |
Stock Comparison
RGS vs ROL Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, ROL has a market cap of 25.9B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while ROL trades at $53.93.
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 0.54, whereas ROL's P/E ratio is 49.46. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to ROL's ROE of +0.37%. 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 April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, SCI has a market cap of 11.8B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while SCI trades at $84.77.
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 0.54, whereas SCI's P/E ratio is 22.31. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to SCI's ROE of +0.34%. 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 BFAM Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, BFAM has a market cap of 4.7B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while BFAM trades at $83.81.
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 0.54, whereas BFAM's P/E ratio is 24.94. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to BFAM's ROE of +0.14%. 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 HRB Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, HRB has a market cap of 4.1B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while HRB trades at $32.18.
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 0.54, whereas HRB's P/E ratio is 7.52. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to HRB's ROE of -1.66%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to HRB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check HRB's competition here
RGS vs CVSA Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, CVSA has a market cap of 4.1B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while CVSA trades at $117.86.
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 0.54, whereas CVSA's P/E ratio is 17.36. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to CVSA's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to CVSA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check CVSA's competition here
RGS vs FTDR Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, FTDR has a market cap of 3.9B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while FTDR trades at $54.58.
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 0.54, whereas FTDR's P/E ratio is 15.96. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to FTDR's ROE of +1.01%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to FTDR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check FTDR's competition here
RGS vs DSEY Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, DSEY has a market cap of 2.7B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, 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 0.54, whereas DSEY's P/E ratio is -14.47. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, 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 MCW Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, MCW has a market cap of 2.3B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while MCW trades at $6.97.
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 0.54, whereas MCW's P/E ratio is 22.48. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, 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 ROVR Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, ROVR has a market cap of 2B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, 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 0.54, whereas ROVR's P/E ratio is 183.25. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, 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 CSV Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, CSV has a market cap of 731.8M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while CSV trades at $46.48.
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 0.54, whereas CSV's P/E ratio is 14.30. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to CSV's ROE of +0.22%. 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 WW Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, WW has a market cap of 142.6M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while WW trades at $14.27.
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 0.54, whereas WW's P/E ratio is 1.88. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to WW's ROE of -26.25%. 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 EM Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, EM has a market cap of 142.6M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while EM trades at $1.13.
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 0.54, whereas EM's P/E ratio is -112.50. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, 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 MED Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, MED has a market cap of 113.9M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while MED trades at $10.36.
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 0.54, whereas MED's P/E ratio is -6.09. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to MED's ROE of -0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to MED. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check MED's competition here
RGS vs XSPA Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, XSPA has a market cap of 54.5M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, 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 0.54, whereas XSPA's P/E ratio is 21.83. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to XSPA's ROE of +35.63%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to XSPA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check XSPA's competition here
RGS vs EJH Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, EJH has a market cap of 6.4M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while EJH trades at $2.00.
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 0.54, whereas EJH's P/E ratio is -0.03. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to EJH's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to EJH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check EJH's competition here
RGS vs XWEL Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, XWEL has a market cap of 6.3M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while XWEL trades at $1.07.
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 0.54, whereas XWEL's P/E ratio is -0.32. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to XWEL's ROE of +3.59%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to XWEL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check XWEL's competition here
RGS vs MRM Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, MRM has a market cap of 5.8M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while MRM trades at $1.13.
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 0.54, whereas MRM's P/E ratio is 3.05. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to MRM's ROE of +1.55%. 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 BYAH Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, BYAH has a market cap of 711.3K. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while BYAH trades at $1.05.
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 0.54, whereas BYAH's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to BYAH's ROE of -5.91%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to BYAH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check BYAH's competition here
RGS vs TRNR Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, TRNR has a market cap of 219.8K. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while TRNR trades at $1.42.
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 0.54, whereas TRNR's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to TRNR's ROE of -1.78%. 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 IVP Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, IVP has a market cap of 85.8K. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while IVP trades at $0.03.
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 0.54, whereas IVP's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to IVP's ROE of -5.20%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to IVP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check IVP's competition here
RGS vs YYGH Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, YYGH has a market cap of 16.7K. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, while YYGH trades at $1.05.
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 0.54, whereas YYGH's P/E ratio is -0.06. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to YYGH's ROE of -1.00%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to YYGH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check YYGH's competition here
RGS vs NEBCU Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, NEBCU has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, 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 0.54, whereas NEBCU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to NEBCU's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to NEBCU. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check NEBCU's competition here
RGS vs TMX Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, TMX has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, 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 0.54, whereas TMX's P/E ratio is 70.13. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, compared to TMX's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to TMX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check TMX's competition here
RGS vs STON Comparison April 2026
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 61.1M. In comparison, STON has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $24.44, 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 0.54, whereas STON's P/E ratio is -6.64. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.71%, 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