Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -3.6x · EV/EBITDA N/A · ROE -33.9%. (2018–2025 historical series)
Price-based multiples — how expensive the stock is relative to earnings, sales, book value, and cash flow
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $203M | $79M | $109M | $424M | $776M | $1.5B | $2.5B | — | — |
| Enterprise Value | $25M | $-99011011 | $-111365000 | $63M | $252M | $805M | $1.6B | — | — |
| P/E Ratio → | -3.56 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | 0.96 | 0.32 | 0.43 | 1.64 | 2.80 | 6.07 | 10.23 | — | — |
| P/B Ratio | 0.77 | 0.32 | 0.34 | 0.88 | 0.72 | 1.22 | 2.01 | — | — |
| P/FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
P/E links to full P/E history page with 30-year chart
Enterprise-value multiples — capital-structure-neutral measures of total business value
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EV / Revenue | — | -0.40 | -0.44 | 0.24 | 0.91 | 3.18 | 6.42 | — | — |
| EV / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBIT | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Margins and return-on-capital ratios measuring operating efficiency
Full margin charts and quarterly trend are on the Earnings History page
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 53.3% | 53.3% | 38.9% | 36.6% | 42.1% | 41.3% | 36.1% | 46.3% | 48.6% |
| Operating Margin | -42.2% | -42.2% | -85.5% | -267.2% | -99.5% | -70.9% | -92.7% | -63.6% | -48.4% |
| Net Profit Margin | -38.4% | -38.4% | -81.8% | -260.6% | -97.6% | -69.8% | -91.5% | -58.6% | -46.2% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -33.9% | -33.9% | -52.3% | -86.3% | -23.1% | -14.1% | -27.7% | -23.4% | -14.2% |
| ROA | -25.2% | -25.2% | -40.6% | -74.7% | -20.3% | -12.5% | -23.9% | -17.6% | -10.8% |
| ROIC | -95.1% | -95.1% | -151.0% | -152.7% | -37.9% | -31.9% | -60.6% | -24.7% | — |
| ROCE | -36.6% | -36.6% | -53.0% | -86.5% | -22.9% | -14.0% | -27.6% | -23.8% | -13.7% |
Solvency and debt-coverage ratios — lower is generally safer
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debt / Equity | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.04 | — |
| Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | -0.72 | -0.70 | -0.75 | -0.48 | -0.58 | -0.75 | -0.33 | -0.13 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Net cash position: cash ($182M) exceeds total debt ($5M)
Short-term solvency ratios and asset-utilisation metrics
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio | 3.37 | 3.37 | 2.85 | 4.79 | 5.49 | 5.84 | 9.20 | 2.10 | 3.42 |
| Quick Ratio | 3.35 | 3.35 | 2.82 | 4.72 | 5.42 | 5.79 | 9.13 | 2.07 | 3.39 |
| Cash Ratio | 2.49 | 2.49 | 2.05 | 3.97 | 4.72 | 5.27 | 8.61 | 1.67 | 2.92 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.77 | 0.58 | 0.44 | 0.23 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.30 | 0.23 |
| Inventory Turnover | 98.12 | 98.12 | 54.38 | 24.70 | 18.36 | 19.72 | 17.18 | 25.77 | 23.33 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 72.75 | 103.15 | 76.29 | 76.86 | 74.18 | 67.41 | 80.25 | 98.58 |
Earnings, FCF, buyback, and dividend yields — total returns to shareholders
Full dividend history and growth charts are on the Dividend History page
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Payout Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| FCF Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 1.0% | 1.5% | — | — |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 1.0% | 1.5% | — | — |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $16M | $15M | $14M | $14M | $13M | $5M | $2M | $2M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 8 years · Updated daily
Live VCP patterns, Cup & Handle overlays, support/resistance, and AI trade plans.
High-probability breakout stocks crossing their pivot across 5 pattern engines.
DCF models, multiple analysis, and analyst estimates.
10-year return with dividends reinvested.
Compare growth, multiples, and margins vs sector.
Quick answers to the most common questions about buying AMWL stock.
American Well Corporation's current P/E ratio is -3.6x. This places it at the 50th percentile of its historical range.
American Well Corporation's return on equity (ROE) is -33.9%. The historical average is -34.4%.
Based on historical data, American Well Corporation is trading at a P/E of -3.6x. This is at the 50th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
American Well Corporation has 53.3% gross margin and -42.2% operating margin.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Persistent operating cash burn
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Sub-Book Pricing Reflects Structural Losses
Based on reported figures, AMWL trades at 0.81 times sales and 0.77 times book value, a discount that appears to price in continued revenue contraction and negative free cash flow rather than a cheap entry point. Investors should monitor whether book value erodes faster than the discount narrows. Peer multiples are not directly comparable because most peers are profitable, and P/E is not meaningful given the negative earnings base.
The price-to-book ratio below 1.0 suggests the market values the company's net assets at a discount, which typically signals doubt about whether those assets can generate returns above their carrying value. With ROE near -4.9% and ROIC near -19.1% in 2026Q3, the equity base is being consumed rather than compounded, so book value itself is a moving target. Relative to DOCS at 6.81 times book and TDOC at 1.12 times, AMWL's discount is wide, but it is closer to the sector's loss-making names than to its profitable peers, indicating the gap is more likely driven by fundamentals than by mispricing.
Margin Recovery Driven by Cost Compression
As reported in quarterly figures, AMWL's operating margin improved from -83.4% in 2024Q2 to -22.8% in 2026Q3, yet remains deeply negative, with net margin at -23.2%. The improvement appears to reflect expense reduction against a shrinking revenue base rather than durable unit economics. Gross margin has swung between 37.2% and 56.1% over the period, which is volatile for a platform business.
The trajectory of operating margin is encouraging on the surface, but the gross margin volatility suggests pricing or mix instability that cost cuts alone cannot resolve. Because operating losses persist, the company has not reached a level where fixed costs are absorbed by revenue, and this suggests breakeven remains dependent on either sustained revenue recovery or further cost reductions. Compared with DOCS, which reports a 30.4% net margin, AMWL lags structurally, and the gap appears to reflect a business still in the cost-rationalization phase.
Negative Returns Compounding Capital Erosion
Based on reported figures, AMWL's ROIC has remained negative across all ten quarters, moving from -33.2% in 2024Q2 to -19.1% in 2026Q3, while ROE stands at -4.9%. The narrowing of losses suggests decay is slowing, but the company is not yet earning a return on the capital it employs. Investors should monitor whether the ROIC trend turns positive within the next several reporting periods.
A negative ROIC indicates that invested capital is being consumed by operating losses, and the improvement from deeply negative levels reflects a smaller denominator of losses rather than a shift to value creation. The ROE figure is less negative than ROIC partly because of the capital structure, which carries minimal debt, so equity returns are not being amplified by leverage. Against TDOC at -11.5% ROIC and HIMS at 9.3%, AMWL sits at the weaker end of the group, which appears structural given its persistent operating deficits.
Ample Cash Buffer Against Shrinking Base
According to reported quarterly figures, AMWL's current ratio stands at 3.01 and quick ratio at 3.00 in 2026Q3, supported by cash of $180.8M against total liabilities of $84.0M. The liquidity cushion is substantial, though cash has declined from $276.9M in 2024Q2. Based on the reported burn rate, the buffer appears sufficient for the near term but warrants monitoring.
The near-identical current and quick ratios indicate that the balance sheet is dominated by cash rather than inventory, which is consistent with a software and services model and means liquidity is not dependent on asset conversion. However, the cash balance is falling alongside negative free cash flow, so the runway implied by current reserves is finite and should be tracked against each quarter's burn. Under severe stress, the lack of meaningful debt provides flexibility, though the figures do not reveal the company's access to additional financing, which warrants further investigation.
Cost Cuts Mask Demand Erosion Risk
As reported in financial statements, AMWL's margin recovery may rest more on shrinking expenses than on growing revenue, since operating margin improved while revenue contracted and deferred revenue fell from $68.5M to $20.7M. The most commonly misapplied metric here is the price-to-book ratio, which may appear attractive but reflects impaired earning power.
Operating margin improvement is the metric most often cited as evidence of a turnaround, yet in this case it obscures a shrinking top line and declining forward contracted demand, which together suggest the improvement may be temporary. Price-to-book is commonly misapplied to this business model because a software-enabled services company's value rests on recurring revenue and intangible capabilities that book value does not capture, and the goodwill decline from $111.2M to $54.7M further indicates asset quality concerns. A more informative measure would be the trend in revenue per dollar of operating cost combined with deferred revenue as a leading indicator, though the data does not establish that these measures will reverse.