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 | $27.40 | -2.14% | 68.5M | 11.38 | $2.41 | N/A |
| ROL | $42.14 | +0.96% | 20.3B | 36.98 | $1.14 | +1.71% |
| SCI | $76.75 | +1.04% | 10.6B | 19.89 | $3.86 | +1.78% |
| FTDR | $78.44 | +1.10% | 5.5B | 18.81 | $4.17 | N/A |
| HRB | $39.34 | +3.31% | 5B | 7.49 | $5.25 | +4.36% |
| CVSA | $128.23 | +2.86% | 4.4B | 16.39 | $7.82 | N/A |
| BFAM | $73.03 | +3.03% | 3.8B | 15.84 | $4.61 | N/A |
| DSEY | $8.40 | +0.06% | 2.7B | -14.47 | -$0.58 | N/A |
| MCW | $7.10 | +0.00% | 2.3B | 21.52 | $0.33 | N/A |
| ROVR | $11.00 | +0.05% | 2B | 183.25 | $0.06 | N/A |
Stock Comparison
RGS vs ROL Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, ROL has a market cap of 20.3B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while ROL trades at $42.14.
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 11.38, whereas ROL's P/E ratio is 36.98. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to ROL's ROE of +0.37%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to ROL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check ROL's competition here
RGS vs SCI Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, SCI has a market cap of 10.6B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while SCI trades at $76.75.
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 11.38, whereas SCI's P/E ratio is 19.89. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to SCI's ROE of +0.39%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to SCI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check SCI's competition here
RGS vs FTDR Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, FTDR has a market cap of 5.5B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while FTDR trades at $78.44.
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 11.38, whereas FTDR's P/E ratio is 18.81. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to FTDR's ROE of +1.00%. 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 HRB Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, HRB has a market cap of 5B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while HRB trades at $39.34.
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 11.38, whereas HRB's P/E ratio is 7.49. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to HRB's ROE of -2.26%. 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 July 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 68.5M. In comparison, CVSA has a market cap of 4.4B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while CVSA trades at $128.23.
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 11.38, whereas CVSA's P/E ratio is 16.39. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to CVSA's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to CVSA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check CVSA's competition here
RGS vs BFAM Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, BFAM has a market cap of 3.8B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while BFAM trades at $73.03.
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 11.38, whereas BFAM's P/E ratio is 15.84. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, 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 DSEY Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, DSEY has a market cap of 2.7B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, 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 11.38, whereas DSEY's P/E ratio is -14.47. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, 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 July 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 68.5M. In comparison, MCW has a market cap of 2.3B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while MCW trades at $7.10.
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 11.38, whereas MCW's P/E ratio is 21.52. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to MCW's ROE of +0.10%. 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 July 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 68.5M. In comparison, ROVR has a market cap of 2B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, 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 11.38, whereas ROVR's P/E ratio is 183.25. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, 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 July 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 68.5M. In comparison, CSV has a market cap of 612.5M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while CSV trades at $38.58.
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 11.38, whereas CSV's P/E ratio is 12.45. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to CSV's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to CSV. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check CSV's competition here
RGS vs KLC Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, KLC has a market cap of 569M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while KLC trades at $4.80.
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 11.38, whereas KLC's P/E ratio is 9.42. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to KLC's ROE of -0.55%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to KLC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check KLC's competition here
RGS vs FWDI Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, FWDI has a market cap of 351M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while FWDI trades at $4.70.
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 11.38, whereas FWDI's P/E ratio is -0.17. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to FWDI's ROE of -1.42%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to FWDI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check FWDI's competition here
RGS vs EM Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, EM has a market cap of 303.1M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while EM trades at $1.20.
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 11.38, whereas EM's P/E ratio is -119.50. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, 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 MIN Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, MIN has a market cap of 281.1M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while MIN trades at $2.47.
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 11.38, whereas MIN's P/E ratio is 12.45. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to MIN's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to MIN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check MIN's competition here
RGS vs WW Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, WW has a market cap of 162.2M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while WW trades at $16.22.
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 11.38, whereas WW's P/E ratio is -2.42. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to WW's ROE of +3.34%. 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 LGCY Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, LGCY has a market cap of 149.2M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while LGCY trades at $11.84.
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 11.38, whereas LGCY's P/E ratio is 19.02. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to LGCY's ROE of +0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is less volatile compared to LGCY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check LGCY's competition here
RGS vs MED Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, MED has a market cap of 123M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while MED trades at $11.03.
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 11.38, whereas MED's P/E ratio is -12.15. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to MED's ROE of -0.10%. 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 July 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 68.5M. In comparison, XSPA has a market cap of 54.5M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, 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 11.38, whereas XSPA's P/E ratio is 21.83. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to XSPA's ROE of +24.20%. 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 XWEL Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, XWEL has a market cap of 6.5M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while XWEL trades at $1.06.
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 11.38, whereas XWEL's P/E ratio is -0.32. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to XWEL's ROE of +2.89%. 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 July 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 68.5M. In comparison, MRM has a market cap of 5.3M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while MRM trades at $1.06.
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 11.38, whereas MRM's P/E ratio is 1.22. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to MRM's ROE of -0.68%. 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 EJH Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, EJH has a market cap of 5.2M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while EJH trades at $1.64.
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 11.38, whereas EJH's P/E ratio is -0.03. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to EJH's ROE of +0.01%. 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 TRNR Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, TRNR has a market cap of 1.4M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while TRNR trades at $4.35.
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 11.38, whereas TRNR's P/E ratio is -0.03. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to TRNR's ROE of -2.34%. 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 BYAH Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, BYAH has a market cap of 623.6K. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, while BYAH trades at $0.92.
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 11.38, whereas BYAH's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, 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 IVP Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, IVP has a market cap of 85.8K. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, 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 11.38, whereas IVP's P/E ratio is -0.00. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, 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 NEBCU Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, NEBCU has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, 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 11.38, whereas NEBCU's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, 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 STON Comparison July 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 68.5M. In comparison, STON has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, 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 11.38, whereas STON's P/E ratio is -6.64. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, 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 July 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 68.5M. In comparison, TMX has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.40, 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 11.38, whereas TMX's P/E ratio is 70.13. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, 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