Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 27.9x · EV/EBITDA 8.9x · ROE N/A. (2007–2025 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 | $690M | $599M | $709M | $1.8B | $2.3B | $1.9B | $1.8B | $2.1B | $1.6B | $2.2B | $2.2B |
| Enterprise Value | $1.1B | $981M | $1.2B | $2.4B | $2.1B | $1.8B | $1.9B | $2.3B | $1.8B | $2.5B | $2.5B |
| P/E Ratio → | 27.93 | 22.47 | 805.45 | — | 12.91 | 3.63 | 17.26 | — | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | 2.33 | 2.02 | 2.02 | 4.02 | 5.62 | 4.63 | 4.70 | 4.85 | 4.56 | 7.49 | 8.14 |
| P/B Ratio | — | — | — | — | 3.54 | 3.16 | 29.21 | — | — | 226.79 | 33.44 |
| P/FCF | 5.43 | 4.72 | 6.86 | 9.71 | 8.44 | 7.33 | 10.96 | 587.29 | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | 5.43 | 4.72 | 6.85 | 9.69 | 8.43 | 7.32 | 10.84 | 193.63 | — | — | — |
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 | — | 3.31 | 3.47 | 5.42 | 5.04 | 4.28 | 4.93 | 5.44 | 5.26 | 8.41 | 9.31 |
| EV / EBITDA | 8.89 | 8.14 | 12.82 | — | 8.21 | 7.58 | 13.10 | 18.54 | — | — | — |
| EV / EBIT | 9.03 | 9.55 | 12.75 | 12.26 | 7.95 | 7.63 | 13.87 | 18.95 | — | — | — |
| EV / FCF | — | 7.73 | 11.80 | 13.11 | 7.56 | 6.78 | 11.49 | 659.18 | — | — | — |
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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 97.9% | 98.6% | 99.7% | 83.0% | 99.2% | 68.4% | 90.6% | 93.5% | 99.3% |
| Operating Margin | 40.1% | 40.1% | 26.5% | -213.5% | 61.0% | 56.1% | 36.7% | 28.0% | -68.9% | -25.9% | -18.9% |
| Net Profit Margin | 8.1% | 8.1% | 0.3% | -226.4% | 42.6% | 127.7% | 27.3% | 5.0% | -81.5% | -39.2% | -29.8% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | — | — | — | -654.9% | 27.8% | 158.1% | 169.5% | — | — | -305.5% | -101.0% |
| ROA | 6.4% | 6.4% | 0.2% | -127.5% | 15.7% | 62.7% | 22.1% | 5.9% | -60.2% | -17.8% | -12.3% |
| ROIC | 54.0% | 54.0% | 28.7% | -205.8% | 43.0% | 56.8% | 68.5% | 87.8% | -109.0% | -17.3% | -12.9% |
| ROCE | 50.9% | 50.9% | 36.7% | -148.9% | 24.5% | 31.1% | 32.2% | 41.8% | -63.5% | -13.4% | -8.9% |
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 | — | — | — | — | 0.64 | 0.79 | 7.24 | — | — | 40.63 | 5.59 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 4.96 | 4.96 | 6.30 | — | 1.65 | 2.04 | 3.10 | 3.43 | — | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | — | — | — | -0.37 | -0.24 | 1.43 | — | — | 27.87 | 4.78 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 3.17 | 3.17 | 5.37 | — | -0.95 | -0.62 | 0.61 | 2.02 | — | — | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | 3.01 | 4.94 | 3.40 | -0.88 | -0.55 | 0.54 | 71.89 | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | 3.14 | 3.14 | 2.90 | 9.05 | 34.22 | 7.45 | 4.69 | 3.36 | -4.15 | -0.51 | -1.09 |
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 | 4.69 | 0.84 | 30.58 | 4.61 | 15.41 | 7.50 | 2.23 | 4.72 | 4.17 |
| Quick Ratio | 1.13 | 1.13 | 4.69 | 0.84 | 30.53 | 4.61 | 15.41 | 7.48 | 2.23 | 4.71 | 4.16 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.89 | 0.89 | 2.28 | 0.33 | 25.71 | 3.84 | 11.32 | 4.33 | 1.45 | 3.35 | 3.35 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.75 | 1.00 | 0.94 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.70 | 1.06 | 1.04 | 0.49 | 0.39 |
| Inventory Turnover | — | — | — | — | 1.13 | — | — | 208.93 | — | 26.40 | 1.73 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 57.61 | 85.05 | 106.45 | 102.64 | 100.60 | 114.65 | 99.89 | 85.24 | 100.54 | 86.41 |
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 | 3.6% | 4.5% | 0.1% | — | 7.7% | 27.5% | 5.8% | — | — | — | — |
| FCF Yield | 18.4% | 21.2% | 14.6% | 10.3% | 11.9% | 13.6% | 9.1% | 0.2% | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.5% | 1.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.5% | 1.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $178M | $160M | $155M | $186M | $164M | $161M | $156M | $153M | $149M | $146M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 19 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 IRWD stock.
Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s current P/E ratio is 27.9x. The historical average is 14.1x. This places it at the 100th percentile of its historical range.
Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s current EV/EBITDA is 8.9x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 11.4x.
Based on historical data, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is trading at a P/E of 27.9x. This is at the 100th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has 100.0% gross margin and 40.1% operating margin. Operating margin above 20% indicates strong pricing power and cost efficiency.
Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Debt/EBITDA ratio is 5.0x, indicating high leverage. A ratio above 4x may signal elevated financial risk.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Revenue decline despite EPS beat
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Margin Expansion Masks Revenue Erosion
Operating margin surged to 70.2% in 2026Q2 from 14.7% in 2024Q1, yet revenue fell 15.7% YoY, suggesting profitability gains stem from cost discipline rather than top-line growth, per recent filings.
The 100% gross margin is an artifact of the collaboration accounting model, where Ironwood records its share of net profits rather than gross sales. The dramatic operating margin expansion, from 14.7% in 2024Q1 to 70.2% in 2026Q2, appears driven by a 69% reduction in SG&A, not by increased demand. This suggests the company is prioritizing near-term profitability over reinvestment, which may be unsustainable if revenue continues to decline.
ROIC Volatility Reflects Pipeline Pivot
ROIC swung from -11.9% in 2025Q1 to 37.7% in 2026Q2, per financial statements, indicating high sensitivity to quarterly collaboration payments and the impact of the VectivBio acquisition.
The extreme quarterly swings in ROIC, from -11.9% to 37.7%, highlight the lumpy nature of collaboration revenue and the heavy fixed-cost base. The recent improvement to 37.7% in 2026Q2 appears driven by cost cuts and timing of payments, not by a fundamental increase in capital efficiency. Investors should monitor whether this level is sustainable as the company invests in apraglutide and other pipeline assets, which may pressure returns in the near term.
Working Capital Swings Distort Efficiency
DSO ranged from 63 to 161 days over the past ten quarters, while DPO reached 623 days in 2026Q1, based on reported figures, indicating significant timing effects in collaboration payments.
The cash conversion cycle is not reliably calculable due to missing inventory data, but the extreme volatility in DSO and DPO suggests that working capital metrics are heavily influenced by the timing of payments from AbbVie and other partners. The 623-day DPO in 2026Q1 likely reflects a large payable related to the VectivBio acquisition, not operational inefficiency. This makes quarter-over-quarter efficiency comparisons misleading; investors should focus on annual trends.
Debt Burden Eases but Remains Elevated
Total debt fell to $396.9M in 2026Q2 from $690.4M in 2024Q1, with D/EBITDA improving to 4.90 from 59.86, according to recent SEC filings, yet interest coverage remains thin at 11.24.
The deleveraging trend is positive, but the debt load is still substantial relative to the company's market cap and cash flow. Interest coverage of 11.24 in 2026Q2 is comfortable, but it was as low as 1.06 in 2025Q4, indicating vulnerability to earnings volatility. The negative equity position, at -$161.8M, complicates traditional leverage ratios, and the true risk depends on the sustainability of cash flows from Linzess.
Liquidity Buffer Strengthens but Relies on Cash
Current ratio improved to 6.06 in 2026Q2 from 0.82 in 2025Q2, per financial statements, but the quick ratio equals the current ratio, indicating no inventory buffer and reliance on cash collections.
The liquidity position appears robust, with cash of $79.1M and a current ratio of 6.06, but this is largely due to the asset-light model and the timing of collaboration payments. The quick ratio being identical to the current ratio confirms that inventory is not a factor, which is typical for a royalty-based model. However, the 2025Q2 current ratio of 0.82 shows how quickly liquidity can deteriorate if payments are delayed, so the current strength may be temporary.
Gross Margin Misleads on True Economics
The 100% gross margin is a structural artifact of collaboration accounting, not a reflection of product profitability, as reported in financial statements, and obscures the real cost structure.
Analysts often misinterpret the 100% gross margin as a sign of exceptional pricing power, but it simply reflects that Ironwood records its share of net profits rather than gross sales. The true economics are better captured by operating margin, which has been volatile, and by cash flow, which has been strong but lumpy. Investors should use EV/EBITDA or P/FCF multiples rather than P/S, as revenue is net of partner costs and understates the company's scale.