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 | $27.74 | +2.78% | 67.4M | 0.60 | $45.14 | N/A |
| ROL | $48.36 | +3.82% | 22.9B | 43.60 | $1.09 | +1.51% |
| SCI | $74.11 | +3.96% | 9.9B | 18.97 | $3.79 | +1.86% |
| HRB | $37.13 | -1.07% | 4.8B | 6.84 | $5.59 | +4.41% |
| FTDR | $66.95 | +5.41% | 4.6B | 18.82 | $3.50 | N/A |
| CVSA | $129.54 | +2.54% | 4.3B | 18.37 | $6.86 | N/A |
| BFAM | $64.32 | +8.69% | 3.2B | 18.53 | $3.32 | 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 June 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 67.4M. In comparison, ROL has a market cap of 22.9B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, while ROL trades at $48.36.
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 0.60, whereas ROL's P/E ratio is 43.60. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, 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 June 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 67.4M. In comparison, SCI has a market cap of 9.9B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, while SCI trades at $74.11.
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 0.60, whereas SCI's P/E ratio is 18.97. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to SCI's ROE of +0.39%. 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 June 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 67.4M. In comparison, HRB has a market cap of 4.8B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, while HRB trades at $37.13.
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 0.60, whereas HRB's P/E ratio is 6.84. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to HRB's ROE of -2.26%. 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 FTDR Comparison June 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 67.4M. In comparison, FTDR has a market cap of 4.6B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, while FTDR trades at $66.95.
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 0.60, whereas FTDR's P/E ratio is 18.82. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to FTDR's ROE of +1.00%. 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 CVSA Comparison June 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 67.4M. In comparison, CVSA has a market cap of 4.3B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, while CVSA trades at $129.54.
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 0.60, whereas CVSA's P/E ratio is 18.37. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to CVSA's ROE of +0.17%. 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 BFAM Comparison June 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 67.4M. In comparison, BFAM has a market cap of 3.2B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, while BFAM trades at $64.32.
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 0.60, whereas BFAM's P/E ratio is 18.53. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to BFAM's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to BFAM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check BFAM's competition here
RGS vs DSEY Comparison June 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 67.4M. In comparison, DSEY has a market cap of 2.7B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, 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 0.60, 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 June 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 67.4M. In comparison, MCW has a market cap of 2.3B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, 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 0.60, 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 June 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 67.4M. In comparison, ROVR has a market cap of 2B. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, 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 0.60, 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 June 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 67.4M. In comparison, CSV has a market cap of 611.2M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, while CSV trades at $39.51.
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 0.60, whereas CSV's P/E ratio is 14.00. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to CSV's ROE of +0.18%. 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 EM Comparison June 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 67.4M. In comparison, EM has a market cap of 303.1M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, 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 0.60, 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 WW Comparison June 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 67.4M. In comparison, WW has a market cap of 180.1M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, while WW trades at $18.39.
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 0.60, whereas WW's P/E ratio is 1.72. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to WW's ROE of +3.34%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to WW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check WW's competition here
RGS vs MED Comparison June 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 67.4M. In comparison, MED has a market cap of 135.7M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, while MED trades at $12.23.
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 0.60, whereas MED's P/E ratio is -6.70. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to MED's ROE of -0.10%. 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 XSPA Comparison June 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 67.4M. In comparison, XSPA has a market cap of 54.5M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, 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 0.60, 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 EJH Comparison June 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 67.4M. In comparison, EJH has a market cap of 7.1M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, while EJH trades at $1.86.
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 0.60, whereas EJH's P/E ratio is N/A. 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 XWEL Comparison June 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 67.4M. In comparison, XWEL has a market cap of 6.5M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, while XWEL trades at $1.15.
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 0.60, whereas XWEL's P/E ratio is -0.19. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to XWEL's ROE of +2.86%. 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 June 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 67.4M. In comparison, MRM has a market cap of 5.9M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, while MRM trades at $1.15.
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 0.60, whereas MRM's P/E ratio is 3.14. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to MRM's ROE of -0.68%. Regarding short-term risk, RGS is more volatile compared to MRM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for RGS.Check MRM's competition here
RGS vs BYAH Comparison June 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 67.4M. In comparison, BYAH has a market cap of 1.1M. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, while BYAH trades at $1.31.
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 0.60, 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 TRNR Comparison June 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 67.4M. In comparison, TRNR has a market cap of 97K. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, while TRNR trades at $0.62.
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 0.60, whereas TRNR's P/E ratio is -0.08. 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 IVP Comparison June 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 67.4M. In comparison, IVP has a market cap of 85.8K. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, 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 0.60, 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 YYGH Comparison June 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 67.4M. In comparison, YYGH has a market cap of 2K. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, while YYGH trades at $0.14.
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 0.60, whereas YYGH's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, RGS's ROE is +0.60%, compared to YYGH's ROE of -1.36%. 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 TMX Comparison June 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 67.4M. In comparison, TMX has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, 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 0.60, 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 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 June 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 67.4M. In comparison, NEBCU has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, 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 0.60, 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 June 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 67.4M. In comparison, STON has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, RGS is priced at $27.74, 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 0.60, 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