Enova International vs Regional Management
ENVA and RM side by side, both in personal credit institutions. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ENVA and RM compare
Enova International is the larger company, worth 13 times as much as Regional Management ($4.3B against $335M).
On earnings, Regional Management is cheaper: it trades at 7.6× trailing earnings, against 12.9× for Enova International.
Enova International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.7% versus 9.6% for Regional Management).
Enova International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.3% compared with 7.0% at Regional Management.
Regional Management pays a dividend yielding 3.3%; Enova International does not pay one.
Regional Management scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 9 for Enova International), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | ENVA | RM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.3B | $335M |
| Share price | $174.09 | $36.30 |
| Change, 1 year | 43.4% | −7.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 330% | −39.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.39 | 1.09 |
| Employees | 1,836 | 2,112 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.9× | 7.6× (better) |
| P/S | 1.3× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 2.9× | 0.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 4.9× | 4.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 2.2× | 1.0× (better) |
| PEG | 0.56 | – |
| FCF yield | 45.1% | 96.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $216.23 | $48.10 |
| Margin of safety | 19.5% | 24.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 17.7% (better) | 9.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 23.8% (better) | 11.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 38.7% (better) | 34.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 43.1% (better) | 36.9% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −0.31% | 13.1% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 59.8% | – |
| Operating margin | 24.0% | – |
| Net margin | 10.3% (better) | 7.0% |
| FCF margin | 56.7% (better) | 48.2% |
| Return on equity | 26.1% (better) | 12.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 50.0% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.00 |
| Interest coverage | 2.3× | – |
| Altman Z-score | 1.74 (better) | 0.71 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 3.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 43.1% |
| Buyback yield | 3.1% | 7.5% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.1% | 10.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 94.7% | 88.7% |
| Held by insiders | 5.5% | 23.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$59.9M | −$18.6M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.0% | 4.8% |
Go deeper
- ENVA stock overview
- ENVA income statement
- ENVA valuation and score
- RM stock overview
- RM income statement
- RM valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.