Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 20.7x · EV/EBITDA 15.2x · ROE 9.3%. (1998–2025 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 | $84.3B | $69.9B | $80.5B | $99.2B | $92.3B | $93.7B | $84.3B | $80.3B | $59.5B | $65.5B | $69.7B |
| Enterprise Value | $104.5B | $90.1B | $97.5B | $117.4B | $113.9B | $110.1B | $101.2B | $97.8B | $76.8B | $82.4B | $85.2B |
| P/E Ratio → | 20.72 | 28.48 | 17.46 | 20.01 | 34.01 | 21.81 | 23.67 | 20.78 | 17.56 | 22.41 | 42.22 |
| P/S Ratio | 2.11 | 1.81 | 2.21 | 2.76 | 2.93 | 3.26 | 3.17 | 3.10 | 2.29 | 2.53 | 2.69 |
| P/B Ratio | 3.31 | 2.70 | 2.98 | 3.50 | 3.43 | 3.31 | 3.05 | 2.94 | 2.31 | 2.51 | 2.77 |
| P/FCF | 23.04 | 21.60 | 22.84 | 27.55 | 30.75 | 29.50 | 27.17 | 26.42 | 20.85 | 41.50 | 43.20 |
| P/OCF | 18.67 | 15.48 | 16.39 | 21.05 | 23.62 | 22.63 | 21.26 | 20.25 | 15.07 | 25.27 | 24.57 |
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 | — | 2.34 | 2.67 | 3.26 | 3.62 | 3.83 | 3.81 | 3.78 | 2.96 | 3.18 | 3.29 |
| EV / EBITDA | 15.25 | 18.38 | 12.75 | 17.47 | 24.55 | 19.10 | 20.36 | 20.01 | 18.62 | 19.27 | 25.23 |
| EV / EBIT | 29.46 | 24.95 | 14.40 | 18.25 | 31.16 | 23.26 | 26.58 | 24.89 | 23.23 | 23.41 | 43.27 |
| EV / FCF | — | 27.87 | 27.67 | 32.58 | 37.95 | 34.67 | 32.62 | 32.19 | 26.90 | 52.20 | 52.78 |
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 | 28.4% | 28.4% | 39.1% | 38.2% | 35.9% | 39.2% | 39.3% | 40.0% | 39.9% | 38.7% | 39.0% |
| Operating Margin | 9.2% | 9.2% | 17.4% | 15.3% | 11.2% | 16.2% | 14.5% | 14.9% | 12.8% | 13.4% | 9.9% |
| Net Profit Margin | 6.4% | 6.4% | 12.7% | 13.8% | 8.6% | 15.0% | 13.4% | 15.2% | 13.0% | 10.9% | 6.3% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 9.3% | 9.3% | 16.7% | 17.9% | 9.8% | 15.4% | 12.9% | 14.8% | 13.1% | 11.0% | 6.1% |
| ROA | 3.5% | 3.5% | 6.6% | 7.0% | 3.9% | 6.4% | 5.4% | 6.2% | 5.4% | 4.5% | 2.6% |
| ROIC | 5.9% | 5.9% | 10.5% | 8.7% | 5.7% | 7.8% | 6.5% | 6.6% | 5.8% | 6.2% | 4.7% |
| ROCE | 7.2% | 7.2% | 12.5% | 10.3% | 6.6% | 8.8% | 7.6% | 8.1% | 7.1% | 7.3% | 5.2% |
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 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.87 | 0.71 | 0.74 | 0.69 | 0.71 | 0.68 | 0.68 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 4.57 | 4.57 | 2.40 | 2.97 | 5.07 | 3.46 | 4.13 | 3.85 | 4.46 | 4.13 | 5.09 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 0.78 | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.80 | 0.58 | 0.61 | 0.64 | 0.67 | 0.65 | 0.61 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 4.13 | 4.13 | 2.23 | 2.70 | 4.66 | 2.85 | 3.40 | 3.59 | 4.19 | 3.95 | 4.58 |
| Debt / FCF | — | 6.27 | 4.83 | 5.03 | 7.20 | 5.17 | 5.45 | 5.77 | 6.05 | 10.70 | 9.58 |
| Interest Coverage | 6.03 | 6.03 | 13.32 | 11.69 | 8.54 | 12.97 | 9.00 | 8.12 | 7.15 | 8.89 | 3.82 |
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 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.68 | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0.74 | 0.66 | 0.50 | 0.45 | 0.48 | 0.59 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.48 | 0.43 | 0.40 | 0.54 | 0.48 | 0.33 | 0.30 | 0.31 | 0.42 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.12 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.54 | 0.53 | 0.50 | 0.44 | 0.43 | 0.39 | 0.40 | 0.41 | 0.41 | 0.42 |
| Inventory Turnover | 6.25 | 6.25 | 5.80 | 6.16 | 5.97 | 6.45 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.01 | 6.20 | 6.41 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 46.01 | 48.19 | 45.73 | 45.28 | 40.52 | 40.56 | 41.30 | 42.30 | 49.70 | 48.86 |
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 | 2.9% | 3.6% | 2.9% | 2.2% | 2.2% | 1.9% | 2.0% | 1.9% | 2.3% | 1.8% | 1.6% |
| Payout Ratio | 101.5% | 101.5% | 50.9% | 43.6% | 73.1% | 42.5% | 47.2% | 39.2% | 40.2% | 42.4% | 66.9% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | 4.8% | 3.5% | 5.7% | 5.0% | 2.9% | 4.6% | 4.2% | 4.8% | 5.7% | 4.5% | 2.4% |
| FCF Yield | 4.3% | 4.6% | 4.4% | 3.6% | 3.3% | 3.4% | 3.7% | 3.8% | 4.8% | 2.4% | 2.3% |
| Buyback Yield | 2.8% | 3.4% | 2.9% | 1.6% | 2.2% | 2.3% | 1.6% | 1.8% | 3.4% | 3.3% | 3.7% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 5.7% | 7.0% | 5.8% | 3.7% | 4.3% | 4.2% | 3.6% | 3.8% | 5.7% | 5.1% | 5.3% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $1.3B | $1.3B | $1.4B | $1.4B | $1.4B | $1.4B | $1.5B | $1.5B | $1.5B | $1.6B |
Includes 30+ ratios · 28 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 MDLZ stock.
Mondelez International, Inc.'s current P/E ratio is 20.7x. The historical average is 18.1x. This places it at the 68th percentile of its historical range.
Mondelez International, Inc.'s current EV/EBITDA is 15.2x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 14.3x.
Mondelez International, Inc.'s return on equity (ROE) is 9.3%. The historical average is 12.2%.
Based on historical data, Mondelez International, Inc. is trading at a P/E of 20.7x. This is at the 68th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Mondelez International, Inc.'s current dividend yield is 2.90% with a payout ratio of 101.5%.
Mondelez International, Inc. has 28.4% gross margin and 9.2% operating margin.
Mondelez International, Inc.'s Debt/EBITDA ratio is 4.6x, indicating high leverage. A ratio above 4x may signal elevated financial risk.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Cocoa cost and emerging-market exposure
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Premium Multiple Prices in Margin Recovery
Based on reported figures, MDLZ trades at 35.35x trailing earnings and 21.92x forward earnings, a sizable compression that implies the market expects earnings to roughly rise by about 60 percent over the coming year.
The gap between trailing and forward P/E suggests investors are pricing in a recovery from depressed recent margins rather than paying for current earnings power. Against a peer group where Hershey trades near 40.9x and Kellanova near 21.5x, MDLZ sits in a range that appears to reflect confidence in brand durability, though the 21.2x EV/EBITDA multiple warrants monitoring given that cocoa-driven margin volatility could keep trailing earnings below what forward estimates assume.
Volatile Margins Obscure Underlying Earning Power
According to recent reported quarters, MDLZ operating margin swung between 7.3% and 20.8%, with the 9.4% latest-cycle figure suggesting that headline profitability is highly sensitive to input cost timing.
Gross margin moved from 26.1% to 42.6% across the ten quarters, which points more to commodity pass-through timing than to a stable pricing structure. Net margin in several quarters exceeded operating margin, indicating non-operating contributions such as equity method income that may flatter reported earnings and should be stripped out when judging core profitability.
Returns Recovering From a Low Base
As reported in financial statements, MDLZ ROIC improved from roughly 1.2% to 3.1% over recent quarters, a level that remains well below the cost of capital typically assumed for a business of this scale.
The improvement appears driven primarily by the margin recovery visible in the second quarter of 2026 rather than by any sustained gain in capital efficiency, given that asset turnover stayed near 0.14 throughout. Compared with Kellanova at 14.7% and Hershey at 11.5%, MDLZ's returns on invested capital remain subdued, and goodwill-heavy asset composition suggests acquisition premiums continue to dilute returns.
Leverage Stable but Coverage Thin at Trough
Based on reported figures, MDLZ debt-to-equity eased from 0.87 to 0.84 while debt-to-EBITDA ran between roughly 9.5x and 20.2x, a wide range that reflects earnings volatility more than changes in debt load.
Interest coverage swung from about 5x to over 14x, meaning debt service comfort depends heavily on which quarter is observed. The persistently elevated debt-to-EBITDA in trough quarters suggests refinancing flexibility could tighten if cocoa costs stay elevated, though current figures do not by themselves indicate covenant pressure.
Gross Margin Ratio Misleads on Mix Shift
Gross margin is most commonly misapplied to MDLZ because, as reported in quarterly data, it swings with commodity timing and currency translation, obscuring the mix between biscuits, chocolate, and emerging-market contribution.
Treating gross margin as a stable signal of pricing power can lead analysts to misjudge the business, since the sharp quarterly range from 26% to 43% likely reflects hedging and cost-pass-through lags more than structural change. A segment-level contribution margin, adjusted for constant-currency effects and commodity hedge mark-to-market, would better isolate whether the brand portfolio is truly holding pricing.