Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 47.4x · EV/EBITDA 8.2x · ROE 4.8%. (2016–2025 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 | $3.3B | $3.8B | $3.0B | $2.5B | $2.8B | $5.0B | $3.3B | $4.6B | $2.5B | — | — |
| Enterprise Value | $5.7B | $6.3B | $5.6B | $5.2B | $5.8B | $7.9B | $6.2B | $6.9B | $4.3B | — | — |
| P/E Ratio → | 47.43 | 42.61 | 23.36 | — | 14.49 | 20.22 | — | 22711.11 | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | 0.30 | 0.37 | 0.32 | 0.26 | 0.28 | 0.54 | 0.42 | 0.52 | 0.30 | — | — |
| P/B Ratio | 1.68 | 1.94 | 1.73 | 1.46 | 1.71 | 3.48 | 2.99 | 1.29 | 0.80 | — | — |
| P/FCF | 12.92 | 12.97 | 18.23 | 24.21 | — | 10.16 | — | 24.28 | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | 9.61 | 11.16 | 14.64 | 16.10 | 57.86 | 9.17 | — | 17.04 | — | — | — |
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 | — | 0.61 | 0.59 | 0.55 | 0.57 | 0.84 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.52 | — | — |
| EV / EBITDA | 8.21 | 11.12 | 12.07 | 11.69 | 7.39 | 10.25 | 18.74 | 11.45 | 14.10 | — | — |
| EV / EBIT | 12.49 | 18.94 | 14.32 | 20.90 | 10.91 | 15.26 | 1539.77 | 35.35 | 302.56 | — | — |
| EV / FCF | — | 21.36 | 33.32 | 51.87 | — | 15.99 | — | 36.47 | — | — | — |
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 | 16.2% | 16.2% | 18.3% | 17.4% | 19.3% | 20.7% | 17.7% | 20.2% | 19.2% | 18.5% | 18.5% |
| Operating Margin | 4.5% | 4.5% | 3.6% | 2.2% | 5.3% | 5.3% | -0.7% | 2.1% | 0.2% | -2.5% | -4.8% |
| Net Profit Margin | 0.9% | 0.9% | 1.4% | -0.4% | 1.9% | 2.7% | -2.8% | 0.0% | -2.3% | -3.2% | -7.0% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 4.8% | 4.8% | 7.6% | -2.1% | 12.6% | 19.7% | -9.5% | 0.0% | -6.2% | -7.7% | -15.4% |
| ROA | 1.2% | 1.2% | 1.7% | -0.5% | 2.5% | 3.3% | -3.0% | 0.0% | -3.0% | -3.8% | -7.6% |
| ROIC | 7.9% | 7.9% | 5.8% | 3.4% | 9.0% | 9.0% | -0.8% | 2.6% | 0.2% | -2.5% | -4.3% |
| ROCE | 7.2% | 7.2% | 6.4% | 3.8% | 9.7% | 9.3% | -1.1% | 4.0% | 0.3% | -4.3% | -7.3% |
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 | 1.66 | 1.66 | 1.89 | 2.13 | 2.16 | 2.52 | 3.61 | 0.88 | 0.87 | 0.99 | 0.94 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 5.76 | 5.76 | 7.19 | 7.94 | 4.59 | 4.73 | 12.05 | 5.18 | 8.87 | 28.32 | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 1.26 | 1.44 | 1.67 | 1.78 | 1.99 | 2.63 | 0.65 | 0.58 | 0.85 | 0.81 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 4.37 | 4.37 | 5.46 | 6.23 | 3.76 | 3.73 | 8.78 | 3.83 | 5.91 | 24.28 | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | 8.39 | 15.09 | 27.65 | — | 5.82 | — | 12.19 | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | 1.53 | 1.53 | 1.69 | 0.89 | 2.75 | 2.89 | 0.02 | 1.29 | 0.06 | -0.78 | -1.53 |
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 | 22.76 | 22.76 | 1.15 | 1.17 | 1.16 | 1.16 | 1.40 | 1.23 | 1.35 | 0.97 | 1.13 |
| Quick Ratio | 22.76 | 22.76 | 1.15 | 1.17 | 1.16 | 1.16 | 1.40 | 1.23 | 1.35 | 0.97 | 1.13 |
| Cash Ratio | 6.28 | 6.28 | 0.34 | 0.32 | 0.27 | 0.32 | 0.52 | 0.35 | 0.44 | 0.21 | 0.24 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 1.34 | 1.25 | 1.22 | 1.27 | 1.19 | 1.07 | 1.22 | 1.26 | 1.19 | 1.09 |
| Inventory Turnover | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Payout Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | 2.1% | 2.3% | 4.3% | — | 6.9% | 4.9% | — | 0.0% | — | — | — |
| FCF Yield | 7.7% | 7.7% | 5.5% | 4.1% | — | 9.8% | — | 4.1% | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.3% | 0.3% | 0.3% | 0.3% | 1.0% | 0.2% | 0.6% | 0.7% | 0.6% | — | — |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.3% | 0.3% | 0.3% | 0.3% | 1.0% | 0.2% | 0.6% | 0.7% | 0.6% | — | — |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $235M | $233M | $227M | $228M | $227M | $221M | $225M | $171M | $181M | $181M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 10 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 CWK stock.
Cushman & Wakefield plc's current P/E ratio is 47.4x. The historical average is 25.2x. This places it at the 100th percentile of its historical range.
Cushman & Wakefield plc's current EV/EBITDA is 8.2x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 12.1x.
Cushman & Wakefield plc's return on equity (ROE) is 4.8%. The historical average is 0.4%.
Based on historical data, Cushman & Wakefield plc is trading at a P/E of 47.4x. This is at the 100th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Cushman & Wakefield plc has 16.2% gross margin and 4.5% operating margin.
Cushman & Wakefield plc's Debt/EBITDA ratio is 5.8x, indicating high leverage. A ratio above 4x may signal elevated financial risk.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Thin margins against elevated leverage
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Multiples Reflect Earnings Skepticism Not Asset Value
Based on reported figures, CWK trades at 47.43x trailing P/E and 8.21x EV/EBITDA, with P/B of 1.68 and P/S of 0.30, while P/FFO is unavailable in the supplied data and cannot be used to judge the stock on its primary REIT-style metric. The elevated P/E alongside a moderate P/B suggests the market is paying for depressed reported earnings rather than for book value, which may indicate valuation is anchored to recovery expectations. Investors should monitor whether a normalization of FFO per share, which swung between $0.05 and $0.69 over the window, can justify the current price level, since the lack of a stable earnings base makes multiple-based comparison to CBRE and JLL less conclusive than headline figures imply.
The 47.43x P/E is inflated by a thin 0.9% net margin and a 4.8% ROE, so it primarily reflects compressed earnings rather than a premium growth multiple. The 8.21x EV/EBITDA sits well below CBRE's 19.11x and JLL's 12.11x, which may indicate a discount for leverage and earnings volatility rather than mispricing. Without a reported P/FFO or implied cap rate, valuation remains provisional and should be re-tested once FFO stability is established.
NOI Margin Volatility Limits Earnings Visibility
As reported in financial statements, CWK's NOI margin has moved between 14.6% and 20.1% across ten quarters, ending at 17.3%, while FFO per share fell from 0.69 in 2024Q4 to 0.33 in 2026Q3, indicating that property-level profitability has not translated into stable distributable earnings. The 2026Q1 margin trough coincided with negative ROE of -0.6%, pointing to operating leverage that cuts both ways. Investors should monitor whether margin recovery is organic or merely reflects the timing of transactional revenue recognition, which the data cannot distinguish.
The gap between NOI margin stability in the mid-teens and FFO volatility suggests that financing costs and non-operating items absorb a meaningful share of property income. FFO growth of -19.8% in the latest quarter following 81.1% in the prior one signals that quarterly results are driven by discrete events rather than a steady recurring base. The absence of reported acquisition-versus-organic detail prevents a clean read on whether growth is accretive.
Payout Coverage Cannot Be Verified
Based on EDBL's reported figures, CWK's FFO payout ratio and dividend yield are both unavailable, with AFFO per share ranging from 0.00 to 0.65 and dividends paid recorded as zero in the latest period, leaving distribution safety indeterminate from the supplied data. The absence of a dividend stream means the traditional REIT payout test does not apply directly, though the AFFO volatility itself signals weak recurring cash coverage. Investors should treat any future distribution commitment with caution until AFFO stabilizes above a sustainable run rate.
AFFO per share fell to 0.00 in 2026Q1 and reached only 0.17 in 2026Q3, which suggests that recurring cash generation is too inconsistent to support a reliable distribution. The lack of a reported dividend yield means no payout ratio can be constructed, and any inference about future dividend capacity would be speculative. Coverage should be re-assessed only after multiple quarters of positive AFFO are reported.
Deleveraging Progress Outpaced by Earnings Erosion
According to recent SEC filings, CWK's Debt/Equity fell from 1.98 in 2024Q3 to 1.42 in 2026Q3, yet interest coverage has been erratic, ranging from 0.78 to 3.35 and sitting at 2.70 in the latest quarter, leaving limited margin for error if earnings weaken further. The improvement appears driven more by equity rebuild than by aggressive debt repayment. Investors should monitor whether coverage can hold above 2.0 consistently, since the recent sub-1.0 readings suggest debt service has at times been covered only by balance sheet resources.
Debt/Equity remains well above JLL's 0.44, indicating CWK carries materially more financial risk per unit of equity. The compression in cash from roughly $793M to $489M over the period reduces the buffer available to absorb coverage shortfalls. Fixed-rate exposure, maturity profile, and refinancing terms are not supplied, so the refinancing risk cannot be fully quantified.
Revenue Growth Not Converting to Recurring Income
Based on reported figures, CWK's quarterly revenue of roughly $2.8B and 8.9% year-over-year growth indicate top-line momentum, but occupancy, G&A efficiency, and geographic concentration metrics are not supplied, limiting assessment of portfolio-level quality. The U.S. concentration noted in the business profile may amplify sensitivity to domestic rate cycles. Investors should monitor whether fee-based and transactional revenue mix shifts in a way that supports margin durability.
Top-line growth paired with a 0.9% net margin suggests that cost absorption, rather than demand, is the binding constraint on earnings. Without occupancy or property-type breakdowns, the quality of the revenue base cannot be independently verified. The absence of these disclosures in the supplied data is noted as a gap, not as evidence of any specific operational weakness.
P/E Misleads on Earnings Depressed by Non-Cash Items
The most commonly misapplied metric here is trailing P/E, which at 47.43x appears to signal an expensive stock but is distorted by depreciation, amortization, and non-recurring items that depress GAAP net income well below FFO, as seen in the gap between a $52.1M quarterly net income and $78.9M FFO. Based on reported figures, FFO or AFFO-based multiples offer a more stable lens, though AFFO volatility limits their reliability as well. Investors should normalize earnings toward FFO before drawing conclusions about relative valuation versus CBRE or JLL.
Applying standard P/E to a real estate services firm with heavy non-cash charges overstates the apparent cost of the equity and obscures underlying cash generation. The preferred alternative is an FFO-based or EV/EBITDA framework adjusted for acquisition and integration costs, which the supplied data does not fully permit. Until a stable FFO base is established, any valuation conclusion should be treated as tentative.