Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 54.0x · EV/EBITDA 13.3x · ROE 2.9%. (2012–2025 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 | $468M | $328M | $416M | $388M | $520M | $1.4B | $2.9B | $989M | $1.0B | $602M | $363M |
| Enterprise Value | $391M | $260M | $355M | $325M | $460M | $1.3B | $2.9B | $987M | $1.0B | $653M | $341M |
| P/E Ratio → | 53.99 | 42.69 | 30.61 | 59.73 | — | 99.46 | — | 624.91 | 335.51 | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | 1.60 | 1.28 | 1.56 | 1.52 | 2.24 | 6.60 | 16.97 | 5.03 | 5.50 | 4.22 | 3.17 |
| P/B Ratio | 1.62 | 1.28 | 1.67 | 1.64 | 2.27 | 5.83 | 17.75 | 6.17 | 7.47 | 7.76 | 4.60 |
| P/FCF | 44.97 | 35.87 | 81.93 | 46.23 | — | 96.09 | 234.70 | 77.61 | 123.61 | — | — |
| P/OCF | 18.12 | 14.46 | 13.23 | 19.26 | 23.32 | 52.50 | 96.51 | 34.80 | 35.86 | 60.84 | 42.78 |
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 | — | 1.01 | 1.33 | 1.27 | 1.98 | 6.13 | 17.00 | 5.02 | 5.45 | 4.58 | 2.98 |
| EV / EBITDA | 13.31 | 10.08 | 11.37 | 11.95 | 23.35 | 38.45 | 192.69 | 50.45 | 49.95 | 57.60 | 38.21 |
| EV / EBIT | 69.43 | 52.61 | 37.65 | 38.13 | 529.20 | 77.91 | — | 139.55 | 204.55 | 528.22 | — |
| EV / FCF | — | 28.46 | 69.91 | 38.71 | — | 89.22 | 235.05 | 77.52 | 122.46 | — | — |
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 | 57.1% | 57.1% | 56.5% | 56.7% | 55.5% | 57.5% | 55.2% | 55.7% | 55.4% | 56.0% | 59.2% |
| Operating Margin | 1.9% | 1.9% | 3.5% | 2.2% | -1.2% | 5.9% | -2.7% | 3.5% | 2.8% | 0.3% | 0.1% |
| Net Profit Margin | 2.9% | 2.9% | 5.0% | 2.6% | -0.9% | 6.4% | -4.1% | 0.8% | 1.6% | -1.5% | -2.6% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 2.9% | 2.9% | 5.5% | 2.9% | -0.9% | 6.7% | -4.4% | 1.1% | 2.8% | -2.7% | -3.7% |
| ROA | 1.8% | 1.8% | 3.4% | 1.7% | -0.5% | 3.2% | -1.8% | 0.4% | 1.1% | -1.1% | -2.0% |
| ROIC | 2.0% | 2.0% | 3.9% | 2.5% | -1.4% | 6.0% | -2.1% | 3.6% | 3.0% | 0.3% | 0.1% |
| ROCE | 1.6% | 1.6% | 3.2% | 1.9% | -0.9% | 4.0% | -1.6% | 2.6% | 2.5% | 0.3% | 0.1% |
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 | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.17 | 0.27 | 0.35 | 0.43 | 0.86 | 0.90 | 0.78 | 1.22 | 0.43 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 2.56 | 2.56 | 1.32 | 2.37 | 4.11 | 3.02 | 9.37 | 7.34 | 5.26 | 8.34 | 3.78 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | -0.27 | -0.25 | -0.27 | -0.26 | -0.42 | 0.03 | -0.01 | -0.07 | 0.66 | -0.28 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | -2.63 | -2.63 | -1.95 | -2.32 | -3.04 | -2.96 | 0.29 | -0.05 | -0.47 | 4.53 | -2.47 |
| Debt / FCF | — | -7.41 | -12.01 | -7.52 | — | -6.86 | 0.35 | -0.08 | -1.15 | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | 0.92 | 0.92 | 5.72 | 4.08 | 0.30 | 4.81 | -1.73 | 2.22 | 1.01 | 1.20 | -1.88 |
Net cash position: cash ($134M) exceeds total debt ($66M)
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 | 2.43 | 2.43 | 1.86 | 1.97 | 2.04 | 2.82 | 1.87 | 2.24 | 2.32 | 1.55 | 2.00 |
| Quick Ratio | 2.27 | 2.27 | 1.70 | 1.80 | 1.89 | 2.70 | 1.75 | 2.09 | 2.18 | 1.37 | 1.86 |
| Cash Ratio | 1.46 | 1.46 | 1.00 | 1.22 | 1.33 | 2.14 | 1.32 | 1.53 | 1.58 | 0.69 | 1.17 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.61 | 0.67 | 0.65 | 0.56 | 0.50 | 0.43 | 0.50 | 0.59 | 0.60 | 0.71 |
| Inventory Turnover | 7.39 | 7.39 | 6.82 | 6.52 | 6.69 | 8.08 | 6.22 | 6.11 | 8.24 | 5.42 | 6.96 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 77.97 | 72.59 | 75.10 | 86.12 | 80.35 | 95.16 | 97.83 | 72.89 | 108.81 | 100.86 |
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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | 1.9% | 2.3% | 3.3% | 1.7% | — | 1.0% | — | 0.2% | 0.3% | — | — |
| FCF Yield | 2.2% | 2.8% | 1.2% | 2.2% | — | 1.0% | 0.4% | 1.3% | 0.8% | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $59M | $59M | $59M | $59M | $57M | $53M | $54M | $51M | $47M | $47M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 14 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 MTLS stock.
Materialise N.V.'s current P/E ratio is 54.0x. The historical average is 86.3x. This places it at the 40th percentile of its historical range.
Materialise N.V.'s current EV/EBITDA is 13.3x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 36.9x.
Materialise N.V.'s return on equity (ROE) is 2.9%. The historical average is 3.2%.
Based on historical data, Materialise N.V. is trading at a P/E of 54.0x. This is at the 40th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Materialise N.V. has 57.1% gross margin and 1.9% operating margin.
Materialise N.V.'s Debt/EBITDA ratio is 2.6x, indicating moderate leverage. A ratio between 2-4x is manageable but warrants monitoring.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
High valuation with low returns on capital
Premium Multiple Demands Convincing Growth
Materialise trades at a significant premium with a P/E of 51.01 and EV/EBITDA of 12.43, which implies the market is pricing in a substantial acceleration in earnings growth that has yet to materialize in its volatile financials.
The forward P/E of 41.86 and EV/EBITDA of 9.88 suggest the market expects meaningful earnings improvement, but the company's historical ROIC of 0.8% to 1.8% indicates a poor return on invested capital that does not justify such a premium. Compared to peers like 3D Systems (DDD) trading at a P/E of 16.53 and Stratasys (SSYS) with negative metrics, Materialise's valuation is an outlier, pricing in a future that is not yet reflected in its recent operational performance.
Capital Returns Remain Below Cost of Capital
Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) has been extremely low, oscillating between 0.2% and 1.8% over the past ten quarters, indicating the company is not generating sufficient returns to create value for shareholders relative to its capital base.
The sub-2% ROIC, when contrasted with the company's robust gross margins of ~57%, points to severe capital inefficiency. This gap suggests that a massive amount of invested capital is tied up in assets like goodwill (10.4% of total assets) and working capital that are not translating into bottom-line profits, which is a core concern given its high valuation multiples.
Working Capital Cycle Extends and Contracts
The cash conversion cycle (CCC) has been volatile, ranging from 49 to 68 days over the past two years, primarily driven by swings in days payable outstanding (DPO) that suggest inconsistent supplier payment terms.
While DSO has remained relatively stable around 70 days, indicating consistent collection from customers, the DPO has fluctuated significantly (57-74 days), which appears to be the main lever managing short-term cash flow. This volatility in the CCC, alongside a low asset turnover of 0.17, reveals that the company's operational efficiency is not yet at a scale that can support its cost structure reliably.
Unique Profile Among Stressed 3D Peers
Materialise is the only profitable company in its immediate peer set, but its valuation premium is extreme; its EV/EBITDA of 12.43 is unfathomable for Stratasys and 3D Systems, which are currently unprofitable and have negative ROICs.
The peer comparison highlights that Materialise operates a fundamentally different business model as a software and materials provider versus peers focused on hardware. Its high gross margins (57% vs. negative for SSYS) and positive cash flow distinguish it operationally. However, this structural advantage is already fully captured in its valuation, and the risk is that the market is conflating its relative strength with absolute high-growth potential.
Return on Equity Masks True Capital Inefficiency
The most commonly misapplied ratio for Materialise is likely Return on Equity (ROE), which appears low and volatile but obscures the real problem: the company's core operations generate minimal returns on all the capital (debt and equity) they consume.
Analysts might focus on the negative ROE of -0.2% in 2025Q1 as a sign of distress, but the more critical issue is that ROIC has never exceeded 1.8%. Using ROE as the primary metric misses the point that the company's entire capital base is being employed inefficiently. A more appropriate measure would be a segment-level ROIC analysis for its software versus manufacturing businesses, as the blended figure dilutes the high-margin software performance with low-return physical assets.