Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 11.7x · EV/EBITDA 26.5x · ROE 5.9%. (1996–2025 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 | $8.1B | $9.7B | $10.7B | $16.0B | $13.8B | $21.9B | $15.6B | $17.6B | $13.3B | $19.3B | $16.5B |
| Enterprise Value | $62.2B | $63.8B | $39.9B | $44.7B | $41.9B | $41.9B | $31.5B | $30.9B | $26.9B | $30.7B | $28.1B |
| P/E Ratio → | 11.73 | 48.01 | 14.44 | 14.01 | 67.06 | 18.62 | — | 8.57 | 28.54 | 10.00 | 15.02 |
| P/S Ratio | 0.46 | 0.55 | 0.62 | 0.99 | 1.05 | 2.26 | 3.17 | 1.36 | 1.13 | 1.79 | 1.75 |
| P/B Ratio | 2.61 | 2.95 | 2.89 | 3.67 | 2.58 | 1.97 | 1.38 | 1.37 | 1.26 | 1.65 | 1.65 |
| P/FCF | 5.16 | 5.80 | 8.87 | 9.07 | 13.82 | 24.78 | — | 16.38 | 56.56 | 56.45 | — |
| P/OCF | 2.97 | 3.53 | 4.55 | 5.94 | 7.84 | 15.93 | — | 9.70 | 7.74 | 8.76 | 10.78 |
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 | — | 3.64 | 2.32 | 2.77 | 3.19 | 4.32 | 6.40 | 2.39 | 2.29 | 2.85 | 2.97 |
| EV / EBITDA | 26.48 | 31.57 | 17.21 | 16.53 | 8.52 | 12.21 | 55.42 | 5.89 | 10.17 | 11.36 | 9.58 |
| EV / EBIT | 62.12 | 91.11 | 25.60 | 28.24 | 27.98 | 18.51 | — | 8.36 | 20.24 | 19.50 | 14.38 |
| EV / FCF | — | 38.23 | 32.96 | 25.30 | 41.86 | 47.42 | — | 28.83 | 114.28 | 89.78 | — |
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 | 44.4% | 44.4% | 45.5% | 47.1% | 49.3% | 48.0% | 34.8% | 41.1% | 41.2% | 42.6% | 41.9% |
| Operating Margin | 5.7% | 5.7% | 8.6% | 11.7% | 11.0% | 23.5% | -13.1% | 30.5% | 12.5% | 15.9% | 22.0% |
| Net Profit Margin | 1.2% | 1.2% | 4.3% | 7.1% | 11.2% | 13.0% | -21.0% | 15.9% | 4.0% | 18.1% | 11.6% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 5.9% | 5.9% | 18.5% | 23.5% | 17.9% | 11.2% | -8.6% | 17.6% | 4.2% | 18.0% | 12.4% |
| ROA | 0.5% | 0.5% | 1.8% | 2.6% | 3.4% | 3.2% | -2.9% | 6.4% | 1.6% | 6.8% | 4.1% |
| ROIC | 1.7% | 1.7% | 3.4% | 4.3% | 3.3% | 5.9% | -1.8% | 11.8% | 4.7% | 5.8% | 7.7% |
| ROCE | 2.6% | 2.6% | 3.8% | 4.7% | 3.7% | 6.3% | -2.0% | 13.6% | 5.5% | 6.6% | 8.5% |
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 | 17.14 | 17.14 | 8.50 | 7.24 | 6.33 | 2.22 | 1.87 | 1.23 | 1.43 | 1.10 | 1.30 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 27.81 | 27.81 | 13.62 | 11.69 | 6.91 | 7.20 | 36.99 | 2.99 | 5.72 | 4.77 | 4.43 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 16.51 | 7.85 | 6.57 | 5.23 | 1.80 | 1.42 | 1.04 | 1.29 | 0.98 | 1.15 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 26.78 | 26.78 | 12.58 | 10.60 | 5.71 | 5.83 | 28.02 | 2.54 | 5.14 | 4.22 | 3.94 |
| Debt / FCF | — | 32.44 | 24.09 | 16.23 | 28.03 | 22.65 | — | 12.45 | 57.72 | 33.33 | — |
| Interest Coverage | 1.67 | 1.67 | 3.52 | 3.44 | 2.52 | 2.83 | -2.94 | 4.36 | 1.73 | 2.36 | 2.81 |
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 | 1.23 | 1.23 | 1.30 | 1.57 | 1.81 | 1.86 | 3.21 | 1.26 | 0.86 | 0.76 | 0.97 |
| Quick Ratio | 1.20 | 1.20 | 1.26 | 1.53 | 1.78 | 1.84 | 3.16 | 1.22 | 0.82 | 0.72 | 0.93 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.72 | 0.94 | 1.31 | 1.37 | 2.75 | 0.73 | 0.52 | 0.48 | 0.63 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.42 | 0.41 | 0.38 | 0.29 | 0.24 | 0.13 | 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.37 | 0.34 |
| Inventory Turnover | 78.27 | 78.27 | 66.83 | 60.37 | 52.77 | 52.20 | 36.32 | 73.90 | 62.43 | 60.54 | 56.23 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 27.95 | 28.13 | 24.17 | 25.72 | 32.34 | 41.56 | 38.90 | 21.27 | 19.77 | 20.96 |
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 | — | — | — | — | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5% | 1.5% | 2.0% | 1.3% | — |
| Payout Ratio | — | — | — | — | 0.3% | 0.4% | — | 13.2% | 55.8% | 12.9% | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | 8.5% | 2.1% | 6.9% | 7.1% | 1.5% | 5.4% | — | 11.7% | 3.5% | 10.0% | 6.7% |
| FCF Yield | 19.4% | 17.3% | 11.3% | 11.0% | 7.2% | 4.0% | — | 6.1% | 1.8% | 1.8% | — |
| Buyback Yield | 15.1% | 12.7% | 12.6% | 14.3% | 20.0% | 8.0% | 2.3% | 5.9% | 9.6% | 1.7% | 0.6% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 15.1% | 12.7% | 12.6% | 14.3% | 20.1% | 8.0% | 2.8% | 7.4% | 11.6% | 3.0% | 0.6% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $265M | $310M | $359M | $413M | $487M | $494M | $528M | $550M | $579M | $573M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 30 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 MGM stock.
MGM Resorts International's current P/E ratio is 11.7x. The historical average is 22.6x. This places it at the 23th percentile of its historical range.
MGM Resorts International's current EV/EBITDA is 26.5x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 14.1x.
MGM Resorts International's return on equity (ROE) is 5.9%. The historical average is 6.6%.
Based on historical data, MGM Resorts International is trading at a P/E of 11.7x. This is at the 23th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
MGM Resorts International has 44.4% gross margin and 5.7% operating margin.
MGM Resorts International's Debt/EBITDA ratio is 27.8x, indicating high leverage. A ratio above 4x may signal elevated financial risk.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Elevated leverage with fixed lease obligations
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Premium Earnings Multiple Versus Forward Compression
Based on reported figures, MGM trades at 42.8x trailing earnings but only 20.7x forward earnings, a gap that suggests the market is pricing a sharp rebound in reported profitability from the recent near-breakeven base.
The EV/EBITDA multiple of 30.8x is elevated for a casino operator with a 44% gross margin and a 1.2% net margin, which implies investors are capitalizing EBITDA at a rate more typical of growth assets rather than mature hospitality cash flows. The 4.9x price-to-free-cash-flow ratio, by contrast, indicates the equity looks inexpensive on cash generation, so the valuation gap likely reflects how much of operating cash flow is absorbed by lease and interest charges. Investors should monitor whether forward earnings estimates hold, since the valuation case depends heavily on that normalization.
Debt Load Stretches Earnings Coverage Thin
As reported in the quarterly filings, MGM's debt-to-EBITDA ratio ranged from roughly 38x to 213x over the last ten quarters, while interest coverage swung between negative and 5.1x, indicating earnings-based debt service has been unstable.
A debt-to-equity ratio near 8.7x in the latest quarter, versus about 8.2x to 9.4x through the window, suggests the capital structure has remained structurally thin on equity and heavily reliant on debt. Interest coverage recovering to 1.2x in Q3 2026 from 5.1x in Q2 2026 indicates that operating profit has little cushion above financing costs in weaker quarters. This profile warrants further investigation into refinancing schedules and whether lease obligations amplify the fixed-charge burden beyond what the reported debt figures capture.
Margin Compression Erodes Operating Earnings Power
Based on reported quarterly figures, MGM's gross margin declined from 46.3% in Q2 2024 to 41.2% in Q3 2026, while operating margin fell from 9.8% to 2.8%, a compression that may reflect rising labor and fixed operating costs.
The operating margin trend shows that revenue growth has not translated into proportional profit growth, suggesting the cost base is expanding faster than the top line. Net margin volatility, swinging from 6.6% to negative in consecutive quarters, indicates that below-the-line items such as interest and depreciation are doing much of the work in determining reported earnings. Operating margin is the more reliable gauge of underlying earning power here, since net income is distorted by financing and non-recurring charges.
Returns Oscillate Without Clear Compounding
According to the reported ratios, MGM's ROIC has hovered between roughly -0.3% and 1.2% over the ten quarters, a range that indicates returns on invested capital have not compounded meaningfully despite large asset investments.
ROE swings from -7.9% to 8.7% suggest that equity returns are driven more by leverage and quarterly volatility than by a durable improvement in capital efficiency. A ROIC consistently near or below the company's cost of capital would imply that incremental investment is not creating value, though the cost of capital itself is not provided in the data. Investors should monitor whether margin recovery lifts ROIC into a sustained high-single-digit range, which would signal genuine compounding.
Peer Multiples Mask Leverage Differences
Based on the supplied peer data, MGM's 2.6x price-to-book ratio and 0.47x price-to-sales sit between LVS and CZR, yet its debt-to-equity of 8.7x is far above BYD's 1.0x, which may make headline multiples look more favorable than the balance sheet supports.
Comparing MGM's 30.8x EV/EBITDA against peers like Caesars at 9.0x and Melco at 6.8x illustrates that the premium is not explained by superior ROIC or margins, since MGM's net margin is 1.2% against Boyd's 45%. Headline valuation metrics may therefore understate the risk embedded in the capital structure. The sector-typical sensitivity to leverage argues for weighting debt-adjusted metrics over raw earnings multiples when assessing relative value.