Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 5.5x · EV/EBITDA 5.8x · ROE N/A. (2003–2025 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 | $1.3B | $1.3B | $680M | $1.5B | $1.5B | $4.4B | $6.5B | $6.8B | $8.8B | $5.6B | $4.1B |
| Enterprise Value | $3.3B | $3.3B | $2.7B | $3.7B | $3.9B | $6.8B | $8.1B | $7.9B | $10.1B | $6.6B | $4.7B |
| P/E Ratio → | 5.55 | 5.86 | 2.68 | 10.75 | 4.61 | 9.91 | 17.35 | 21.67 | 29.77 | 26.25 | 15.94 |
| P/S Ratio | 0.25 | 0.27 | 0.14 | 0.30 | 0.28 | 0.76 | 1.17 | 1.38 | 1.80 | 1.27 | 0.92 |
| P/B Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 21.11 |
| P/FCF | 5.01 | 5.28 | 4.16 | 6.87 | 7.55 | 14.35 | 12.51 | 19.21 | 15.61 | 11.33 | 18.51 |
| P/OCF | 3.80 | 4.01 | 2.38 | 4.28 | 4.20 | 9.63 | 10.28 | 14.75 | 13.59 | 9.50 | 11.28 |
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 | — | 0.66 | 0.55 | 0.74 | 0.75 | 1.18 | 1.46 | 1.62 | 2.06 | 1.49 | 1.06 |
| EV / EBITDA | 5.78 | 5.90 | 5.39 | 7.93 | 5.90 | 8.12 | 10.92 | 11.90 | 12.85 | 9.21 | 8.53 |
| EV / EBIT | 7.37 | 6.79 | 7.05 | 10.09 | 6.90 | 9.58 | 12.45 | 13.63 | 14.74 | 10.70 | 11.08 |
| EV / FCF | — | 13.13 | 16.73 | 16.73 | 19.86 | 22.14 | 15.66 | 22.54 | 17.84 | 13.33 | 21.21 |
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 | 75.6% | 75.6% | 77.9% | 76.5% | 77.4% | 78.6% | 79.2% | 80.4% | 81.2% | 80.8% | 81.0% |
| Operating Margin | 8.8% | 8.8% | 7.7% | 7.0% | 10.5% | 12.7% | 11.6% | 11.6% | 14.0% | 13.9% | 10.2% |
| Net Profit Margin | 4.5% | 4.5% | 5.1% | 2.8% | 6.2% | 7.7% | 6.7% | 6.4% | 6.1% | 4.8% | 5.8% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 364.1% |
| ROA | 8.3% | 8.3% | 9.2% | 5.1% | 11.6% | 15.2% | 12.9% | 11.4% | 10.4% | 7.8% | 10.3% |
| ROIC | 24.3% | 24.3% | 24.3% | 23.4% | 37.8% | 61.8% | 62.0% | 64.9% | 86.4% | 63.6% | 46.5% |
| ROCE | 27.0% | 27.0% | 25.5% | 21.7% | 31.2% | 39.8% | 35.0% | 39.0% | 42.8% | 32.8% | 28.4% |
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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 7.38 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 4.16 | 4.16 | 4.87 | 5.90 | 4.42 | 3.57 | 3.60 | 3.02 | 3.13 | 3.16 | 2.60 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3.08 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 3.53 | 3.53 | 4.05 | 4.67 | 3.65 | 2.86 | 2.19 | 1.76 | 1.60 | 1.38 | 1.09 |
| Debt / FCF | — | 7.85 | 12.57 | 9.86 | 12.31 | 7.79 | 3.15 | 3.33 | 2.22 | 2.00 | 2.70 |
| Interest Coverage | 2.28 | 2.28 | 1.78 | 2.22 | 4.05 | 4.66 | 4.88 | 3.80 | 3.77 | 3.84 | 4.31 |
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 | 1.13 | 1.13 | 0.93 | 1.10 | 1.39 | 1.33 | 1.58 | 1.54 | 1.14 | 2.05 | 1.85 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.54 | 0.70 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 1.13 | 1.09 | 0.90 | 1.68 | 1.38 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.34 | 0.45 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.93 | 0.87 | 0.75 | 1.41 | 1.07 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 1.81 | 1.83 | 1.80 | 1.90 | 2.06 | 1.80 | 1.82 | 1.75 | 1.53 | 1.75 |
| Inventory Turnover | 2.40 | 2.40 | 2.32 | 2.36 | 2.02 | 2.15 | 2.29 | 2.20 | 2.41 | 2.49 | 2.30 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 6.66 | 5.04 | 5.85 | 4.95 | 4.21 | 5.49 | 5.96 | 5.26 | 7.69 | 5.72 |
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 | 18.0% | 17.1% | 37.4% | 9.3% | 21.7% | 10.1% | 5.8% | 4.6% | 3.4% | 3.8% | 6.3% |
| FCF Yield | 20.0% | 18.9% | 24.0% | 14.6% | 13.2% | 7.0% | 8.0% | 5.2% | 6.4% | 8.8% | 5.4% |
| Buyback Yield | 0.6% | 0.6% | 1.2% | 0.7% | 9.9% | 22.8% | 14.3% | 0.2% | 8.5% | 15.0% | 0.3% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.6% | 0.6% | 1.2% | 0.7% | 9.9% | 22.8% | 14.3% | 0.2% | 8.5% | 15.0% | 0.3% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $104M | $102M | $100M | $100M | $108M | $135M | $142M | $150M | $166M | $172M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 23 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 HLF stock.
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd.'s current P/E ratio is 5.5x. The historical average is 14.5x. This places it at the 10th percentile of its historical range.
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd.'s current EV/EBITDA is 5.8x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 8.4x.
Based on historical data, Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. is trading at a P/E of 5.5x. This is at the 10th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. has 75.6% gross margin and 8.8% operating margin.
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd.'s Debt/EBITDA ratio is 4.2x, indicating high leverage. A ratio above 4x may signal elevated financial risk.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Margin compression and EPS volatility
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Deep Value or Value Trap?
Trading at 5.2x trailing earnings and 4.4x forward earnings, according to recent market data, HLF's multiples imply the market expects continued stagnation or decline, despite a 5.4% revenue uptick in Q2 2026.
The single-digit P/E and EV/EBITDA of 5.65 are far below the packaged foods peer average, reflecting a persistent 'complexity discount' for the MLM model. The forward P/E of 4.43 suggests the market is pricing in further earnings erosion, not recovery. Given the negative equity and thin margins, the low valuation may be justified unless the company can demonstrate sustained margin stabilization.
Gross Margin Strength Masks Operating Strain
Gross margin remains high at 77.7% in Q2 2026, as reported in financial statements, yet operating margin has compressed to 9.7%, indicating that distributor compensation and SG&A are consuming an outsized share of revenue.
The 68-percentage-point gap between gross and operating margins is structurally wide, reflecting the heavy cost of the distributor network. Net margin turned negative at -2.0% in Q2 2026, driven by non-operating items and tax effects, which obscures the underlying operating profitability. Investors should monitor whether the recent EPS miss signals a permanent step-down in margin or a transient quarter.
ROIC Volatility Signals Instability
ROIC swung from 4.1% in Q4 2025 to 29.8% in Q2 2026, based on reported figures, a volatility that suggests the metric is distorted by the negative equity base and non-recurring items.
The extreme quarterly swings in ROIC—from single digits to nearly 30%—make it an unreliable gauge of economic value creation. The negative equity base amplifies the metric, and the underlying operating returns appear modest relative to the capital employed. This volatility warrants caution when comparing ROIC to peers, as it may overstate the efficiency of capital deployment.
Inventory Days Signal Working Capital Drag
Days inventory outstanding rose to 154 in Q2 2026, as per the latest balance sheet data, extending the cash conversion cycle to 132 days, which suggests capital is increasingly tied up in slow-moving stock.
The CCC has hovered between 122 and 149 days over the past ten quarters, with DIO consistently above 140 days, indicating that inventory management is a persistent drag on cash flow. The slight improvement in DSO to 8 days is offset by the high inventory levels, which may reflect distributor inventory builds or slowing sell-through. This working capital intensity reduces the efficiency of the asset base and pressures free cash flow.
Debt Service Comfort Hinges on Cash Flow
Interest coverage fell to 0.91x in Q2 2026, according to recent financial statements, from 2.85x in Q1 2026, indicating that operating income barely covers interest expense, a precarious position for a highly leveraged balance sheet.
The D/EBITDA ratio spiked to 13.8x in Q2 2026, though this is distorted by the annualized EBITDA calculation; the trend across quarters shows leverage remains elevated. The negative equity base and debt-to-assets near 76% suggest limited buffer for adverse shocks. While operating cash flow has been positive, the thin interest coverage warrants close monitoring, especially if interest rates remain elevated.
Liquidity Buffer Improves but Remains Thin
The current ratio improved to 1.20 in Q2 2026, as reported in balance sheet data, from 0.93 in Q4 2024, but the quick ratio of 0.68 reveals heavy reliance on inventory to meet short-term obligations.
The improvement in the current ratio is a positive sign, yet the quick ratio below 1.0 indicates that, excluding inventory, current assets do not cover current liabilities. This suggests that under a stress scenario where inventory becomes illiquid, the company could face a liquidity shortfall. The cash balance of $370.5M provides some cushion, but the reliance on inventory and the negative equity base leave limited room for error.
Valuation Discount vs. Direct-Selling Peers
HLF trades at 5.2x trailing earnings versus NUS at 1.6x and USNA at 25.7x, according to peer data, a wide dispersion that reflects differing market perceptions of business stability and growth prospects.
The EV/EBITDA of 5.65 is higher than NUS's 2.64 and USNA's 1.44, suggesting the market assigns HLF a premium for its larger scale and cash flow generation, despite similar business models. However, HLF's negative equity and thin margins contrast sharply with USNA's debt-free balance sheet, indicating that the discount is not uniform across all metrics. The comparison underscores that HLF's leverage is a key differentiator and risk factor.
ROIC Misleads with Negative Equity
The most misapplied ratio for HLF is ROIC, which is distorted by the negative equity base, as per balance sheet data, making it appear artificially high in some quarters and obscuring the true return on invested capital.
With shareholders' equity at -$474.5M, ROIC calculations become unstable and can produce extreme values that do not reflect underlying operational performance. Analysts should instead focus on return on tangible assets or cash flow return on investment, which better capture the economics of the business. The negative equity also makes P/B meaningless, so investors should rely on EV/EBITDA and cash flow multiples for valuation.