Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 22.3x · EV/EBITDA 9.9x · ROE 7.3%. (2002–2025 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 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $148.8B | $127.1B | $102.3B | $132.7B | $123.1B | $123.8B | $139.7B | $166.2B | $132.3B | $224.2B | $185.0B |
| Enterprise Value | $210.2B | $188.4B | $163.3B | $200.6B | $193.2B | $200.6B | $223.1B | $262.0B | $235.2B | $330.3B | $299.2B |
| P/E Ratio → | 22.27 | 18.51 | 17.51 | 24.85 | 20.63 | 26.56 | 99.87 | 18.11 | 30.33 | 28.03 | 148.51 |
| P/S Ratio | 2.51 | 2.14 | 1.71 | 2.24 | 2.13 | 2.28 | 2.98 | 3.18 | 2.50 | 4.09 | 4.07 |
| P/B Ratio | 1.56 | 1.30 | 1.15 | 1.43 | 1.46 | 1.56 | 1.78 | 1.97 | 1.84 | 2.80 | 2.27 |
| P/FCF | 13.21 | 11.28 | 9.16 | 15.36 | 15.84 | 13.83 | 22.54 | 22.54 | 15.29 | 20.76 | 36.14 |
| P/OCF | 9.97 | 8.51 | 6.81 | 9.99 | 9.52 | 8.49 | 13.96 | 13.25 | 9.69 | 14.38 | 18.34 |
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 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EV / Revenue | — | 3.18 | 2.73 | 3.38 | 3.34 | 3.69 | 4.76 | 5.01 | 4.43 | 6.02 | 6.57 |
| EV / EBITDA | 9.87 | 8.85 | 7.77 | 10.35 | 9.86 | 10.63 | 15.44 | 12.62 | 11.18 | 15.66 | 18.29 |
| EV / EBIT | 13.43 | 12.40 | 11.07 | 14.69 | 13.89 | 15.75 | 33.15 | 14.83 | 13.83 | 21.45 | 32.61 |
| EV / FCF | — | 16.73 | 14.62 | 23.21 | 24.87 | 22.41 | 35.99 | 35.52 | 27.18 | 30.58 | 58.44 |
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 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 55.9% | 55.9% | 55.3% | 53.9% | 54.5% | 57.5% | 58.1% | 61.1% | 62.4% | 61.8% | 60.9% |
| Operating Margin | 26.4% | 26.4% | 25.9% | 23.5% | 25.1% | 25.5% | 20.5% | 30.8% | 30.9% | 30.0% | 28.3% |
| Net Profit Margin | 11.5% | 11.5% | 9.8% | 9.0% | 10.3% | 8.6% | 3.0% | 17.5% | 8.2% | 14.6% | 2.7% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 7.3% | 7.3% | 6.5% | 6.0% | 7.3% | 5.9% | 1.7% | 11.7% | 5.7% | 9.9% | 2.0% |
| ROA | 3.2% | 3.2% | 2.7% | 2.5% | 2.8% | 2.1% | 0.6% | 3.9% | 1.8% | 3.2% | 0.6% |
| ROIC | 7.6% | 7.6% | 7.5% | 6.7% | 7.0% | 6.5% | 4.2% | 6.8% | 6.8% | 6.5% | 6.8% |
| ROCE | 8.7% | 8.7% | 8.7% | 7.7% | 8.0% | 7.3% | 4.9% | 8.1% | 8.1% | 7.7% | 7.9% |
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 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debt / Equity | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.81 | 0.84 | 0.95 | 1.12 | 1.26 | 1.22 | 1.53 | 1.45 | 1.51 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 3.43 | 3.43 | 3.43 | 4.03 | 4.08 | 4.71 | 6.82 | 4.96 | 5.22 | 5.53 | 7.50 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 0.63 | 0.69 | 0.73 | 0.83 | 0.97 | 1.06 | 1.13 | 1.43 | 1.32 | 1.40 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 2.88 | 2.88 | 2.90 | 3.50 | 3.58 | 4.07 | 5.77 | 4.62 | 4.89 | 5.03 | 6.98 |
| Debt / FCF | — | 5.45 | 5.46 | 7.85 | 9.02 | 8.58 | 13.46 | 12.99 | 11.88 | 9.82 | 22.30 |
| Interest Coverage | 3.93 | 3.93 | 3.30 | 2.87 | 3.01 | 2.90 | 1.42 | 3.52 | 3.49 | 3.02 | 1.89 |
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 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.70 | 0.63 | 0.67 | 0.70 | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.53 | 0.66 | 1.07 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.54 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.54 | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.41 | 0.55 | 0.98 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.34 | 0.28 | 0.29 | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.33 | 0.35 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.27 | 0.29 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 0.21 | 0.22 | 0.23 | 0.22 | 0.18 |
| Inventory Turnover | 5.12 | 5.12 | 5.33 | 4.91 | 4.03 | 4.28 | 4.38 | 4.71 | 4.85 | 5.22 | 4.66 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 39.24 | 33.62 | 27.15 | 36.22 | 23.96 | 26.48 | 29.06 | 44.75 | 32.72 | 57.63 |
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 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | 3.0% | 3.6% | 2.6% | 2.3% | 2.0% | 1.9% | 1.3% | 3.0% | 5.9% | 4.2% | 4.6% |
| Payout Ratio | 66.7% | 66.7% | 45.6% | 56.5% | 40.9% | 50.5% | 129.0% | 54.7% | 177.4% | 117.3% | 679.4% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | 4.5% | 5.4% | 5.7% | 4.0% | 4.8% | 3.8% | 1.0% | 5.5% | 3.3% | 3.6% | 0.7% |
| FCF Yield | 7.6% | 8.9% | 10.9% | 6.5% | 6.3% | 7.2% | 4.4% | 4.4% | 6.5% | 4.8% | 2.8% |
| Buyback Yield | 1.6% | 1.8% | 0.9% | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 4.5% | 5.4% | 3.5% | 2.5% | 2.0% | 1.9% | 1.3% | 3.0% | 5.9% | 4.2% | 4.6% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $2.0B | $2.0B | $2.1B | $2.0B | $2.0B | $2.0B | $2.0B | $2.0B | $2.0B | $1.8B |
Includes 30+ ratios · 24 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 BUD stock.
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV's current P/E ratio is 22.3x. The historical average is 33.2x. This places it at the 59th percentile of its historical range.
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV's current EV/EBITDA is 9.9x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 11.7x.
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV's return on equity (ROE) is 7.3%. The historical average is 11.5%.
Based on historical data, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV is trading at a P/E of 22.3x. This is at the 59th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV's current dividend yield is 2.98% with a payout ratio of 66.7%.
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV has 55.9% gross margin and 26.4% operating margin. Operating margin above 20% indicates strong pricing power and cost efficiency.
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV's Debt/EBITDA ratio is 3.4x, indicating high leverage. A ratio between 2-4x is manageable but warrants monitoring.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Persistent revenue contraction and leverage
Value Pricing Despite Premium Assets
BUD trades at 24.2x trailing earnings but only 18.8x forward, implying market skepticism about earnings sustainability. According to recent financial data, the PEG of 0.64 suggests undervaluation relative to growth, yet the EV/EBITDA of 10.5x is below Heineken's typical range.
The forward P/E of 18.8x is a 22% discount to the trailing multiple, indicating that the market expects earnings to decline or that current earnings are inflated by one-time gains. The PEG of 0.64, based on consensus growth estimates, appears cheap, but given the negative revenue growth, this growth estimate may be overly optimistic. Compared to Ambev's 15.4x P/E, BUD's premium is justified by its global diversification, but the market is pricing it closer to a value stock like Molson Coors, reflecting concerns about US volume losses and leverage.
Margin Resilience Masked by Interest Drag
Gross margin has held steady near 55-57% over ten quarters, as per financial statements, but net margin compressed to 11.5% from 19.8% in 2026Q2. The gap between operating margin of 26.4% and net margin highlights a significant interest burden.
The stability of gross margin at around 55% indicates strong pricing power and cost discipline, but the net margin compression suggests that interest expense and possibly tax rates are eroding bottom-line profitability. The operating margin of 26.4% is robust, yet the net margin of 11.5% is only slightly above the 10% threshold, implying that leverage costs are consuming a substantial portion of operating profits. This trend warrants monitoring, as if revenue continues to decline, net margins could fall further, potentially impacting dividend coverage.
ROIC Stagnant Amid Deleveraging
ROIC has hovered between 3.3% and 7.3% over the past ten quarters, as reported in financial statements, with the latest at 4.0%. This is well below the cost of capital, suggesting value destruction, though the trend is stable rather than deteriorating.
The ROIC of 4.0% is significantly below the company's weighted average cost of capital, which is likely in the 6-8% range given its debt load. This indicates that the company is not earning an adequate return on its invested capital, a concern exacerbated by the large goodwill balance from the SABMiller acquisition. The slight improvement from 3.3% in 2021Q4 to 4.0% in 2026Q2 is driven by debt reduction rather than operational efficiency, as asset turnover has remained flat at 0.14. Investors should monitor whether management can improve ROIC through organic growth or further cost cuts, as the current level suggests limited value creation.
Negative CCC Reflects Supplier Leverage
The cash conversion cycle has been consistently negative, improving from -100 days in 2021Q4 to -112 days in 2026Q2, as per financial statements. This indicates BUD is using supplier financing to fund operations, with DPO at 167 days.
The negative CCC of -112 days is a sign of significant bargaining power over suppliers, as BUD delays payments to suppliers while collecting from customers quickly. DSO has risen from 12 to 19 days, indicating slightly slower collections, but DPO has increased from 152 to 167 days, more than offsetting the DSO increase. This efficient working capital management provides a source of cheap financing, but it may also strain supplier relationships if extended further. The asset turnover of 0.14 is low, reflecting the heavy goodwill on the balance sheet, which inflates total assets without contributing to revenue generation.
Deleveraging Progress but Debt Remains Heavy
Debt-to-equity has fallen from 1.12 in 2021Q4 to 0.71 in 2026Q2, as reported in financial statements, and D/EBITDA improved from 9.48 to 6.32. However, interest coverage of 4.56x remains thin, indicating limited cushion for earnings shocks.
The consistent deleveraging is a positive sign, with total debt declining from $88.8B to $72.3B, but the absolute level remains high relative to cash of $7.6B. Interest coverage of 4.56x, while improved from 2.91x in 2021Q4, is still below the 5x threshold that lenders typically consider comfortable. The Altman Z-Score in the 'distress zone' suggests that the balance sheet is a constraint on financial flexibility, and if revenue contraction persists, the company may struggle to service debt from operating cash flow. Investors should monitor the maturity profile and any refinancing needs, as rising interest rates could increase the cost of debt.
Thin Liquidity Buffer Raises Concern
The current ratio has remained below 1.0 for ten consecutive quarters, at 0.66 in 2026Q2, as per balance sheet data, with quick ratio at 0.50. This indicates a reliance on short-term financing and potential vulnerability to a credit crunch.
A current ratio of 0.66 means that current liabilities exceed current assets by a significant margin, which is typical for companies with strong cash flow generation and access to credit markets. However, given the high debt load and negative revenue growth, this thin liquidity position could become problematic if access to short-term funding tightens. The quick ratio of 0.50, excluding inventory, further highlights the reliance on inventory to meet short-term obligations, which may be less liquid in a downturn. While the negative CCC provides some buffer, the overall liquidity position appears strained, and investors should monitor any deterioration in cash flow generation.
Premium Valuation vs. Struggling Peers
BUD's P/E of 24.2x is higher than Ambev's 15.4x and Boston Beer's 18.9x, but its ROE of 6.3% is far below Ambev's 18.0%, as per peer data. This suggests the market is pricing in a recovery that has yet to materialize.
Compared to its peers, BUD trades at a premium on P/E and EV/EBITDA (10.5x vs. Ambev's 7.7x), but its profitability metrics lag significantly. Ambev, which is 62% owned by BUD, generates an ROIC of 22.3% versus BUD's 4.0%, highlighting the drag from the parent company's debt and goodwill. The market may be valuing BUD's global brand portfolio and potential for margin recovery, but the current financial performance does not justify the premium. If BUD fails to improve its return on capital, the valuation gap could narrow, leading to multiple compression.
Misapplied P/E Obscures Debt Burden
The P/E ratio is commonly misapplied to BUD because it ignores the substantial debt load and the impact of interest expense on earnings. As per financial statements, net margin compression to 11.5% is largely due to interest costs, which P/E does not isolate.
For a highly leveraged company like BUD, the P/E ratio can be misleading because it is based on net income, which is reduced by interest expense. A more appropriate metric is EV/EBITDA, which captures the company's total value relative to operating earnings before interest and taxes. BUD's EV/EBITDA of 10.5x is more comparable to peers and reflects the true cost of the business. Additionally, investors should consider the net debt to EBITDA ratio, which at 6.32x is elevated, to assess the company's ability to service its debt. Relying solely on P/E may understate the risk associated with the balance sheet.