Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -4.6x · EV/EBITDA 8.3x · ROE -52.1%. (2009–2026 historical series)
Price-based multiples — how expensive the stock is relative to earnings, sales, book value, and cash flow
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $2.0B | $1.6B | $599M | $761M | $380M | $288M | $263M | $331M | $1.7B | $1.3B | $2.5B |
| Enterprise Value | $5.3B | $4.9B | $3.7B | $3.7B | $3.3B | $3.8B | $3.7B | $3.6B | $3.9B | $4.0B | $5.5B |
| P/E Ratio → | -4.57 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 4.79 | — | 23.79 |
| P/S Ratio | 0.63 | 0.50 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.20 | 0.08 | 0.19 |
| P/B Ratio | — | — | 0.86 | 0.76 | 0.29 | 0.23 | 0.18 | 0.15 | 29.51 | 16.29 | 1.15 |
| P/FCF | 13.75 | 10.83 | 11.60 | 14.74 | 1.28 | 4.54 | 2.25 | — | — | 316.43 | — |
| P/OCF | 5.44 | 4.28 | 2.01 | 2.56 | 0.85 | 1.40 | 0.87 | 0.71 | 5.12 | 9.65 | — |
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 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EV / Revenue | — | 1.56 | 1.06 | 0.89 | 0.59 | 0.47 | 0.71 | 0.48 | 0.45 | 0.24 | 0.42 |
| EV / EBITDA | 8.27 | 7.61 | 6.16 | 8.31 | 6.23 | 9.64 | — | 13.29 | 11.40 | 20.15 | 11.36 |
| EV / EBIT | 13.89 | 65.18 | 11.22 | 37.50 | 12.41 | 52.43 | 41.02 | — | 44.72 | — | 18.59 |
| EV / FCF | — | 33.97 | 71.21 | 71.40 | 11.18 | 59.09 | 31.83 | — | — | 948.45 | — |
Margins and return-on-capital ratios measuring operating efficiency
Full margin charts and quarterly trend are on the Earnings History page
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 23.7% | 23.7% | 20.4% | 16.9% | 12.6% | 6.5% | 14.0% | 9.4% | 5.7% | 1.7% | 3.7% |
| Operating Margin | 12.2% | 12.2% | 9.5% | 3.9% | 4.3% | 1.0% | -7.5% | -0.0% | 1.5% | -0.1% | 2.0% |
| Net Profit Margin | -5.7% | -5.7% | 1.1% | -3.5% | 0.9% | -2.3% | -12.2% | -5.2% | 4.1% | -0.4% | 1.1% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -52.1% | -52.1% | 4.6% | -12.4% | 4.0% | -13.4% | -33.9% | -34.1% | 513.7% | -6.2% | 7.0% |
| ROA | -4.1% | -4.1% | 0.8% | -2.7% | 0.9% | -3.1% | -10.3% | -6.4% | 6.0% | -1.1% | 2.3% |
| ROIC | 8.1% | 8.1% | 6.4% | 3.0% | 4.1% | 1.3% | -5.6% | -0.1% | 3.8% | -0.3% | 3.9% |
| ROCE | 10.5% | 10.5% | 8.3% | 3.9% | 5.3% | 1.7% | -7.3% | -0.1% | 2.6% | -0.3% | 5.0% |
Solvency and debt-coverage ratios — lower is generally safer
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debt / Equity | — | — | 4.42 | 2.97 | 2.24 | 2.74 | 2.32 | 1.46 | 36.94 | 32.81 | 1.36 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 5.20 | 5.20 | 5.17 | 6.68 | 5.52 | 8.91 | — | 12.16 | 6.37 | 13.54 | 6.17 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | — | 4.41 | 2.93 | 2.23 | 2.74 | 2.31 | 1.45 | 36.62 | 32.54 | 1.36 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 5.18 | 5.18 | 5.16 | 6.59 | 5.51 | 8.90 | — | 12.08 | 6.32 | 13.43 | 6.14 |
| Debt / FCF | — | 23.15 | 59.60 | 56.67 | 9.90 | 54.55 | 29.58 | — | — | 632.02 | — |
| Interest Coverage | 0.30 | 0.30 | 1.17 | 0.39 | 1.04 | 0.28 | 0.46 | -0.05 | 0.53 | -0.13 | 1.97 |
Short-term solvency ratios and asset-utilisation metrics
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio | 1.05 | 1.05 | 1.30 | 1.21 | 1.16 | 1.21 | 1.11 | 0.92 | 1.45 | 1.99 | 1.58 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.96 | 0.96 | 1.21 | 1.10 | 1.04 | 1.01 | 0.93 | 0.83 | 1.34 | 1.51 | 0.98 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.76 | 0.75 | 0.83 | 1.04 | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.17 | 1.47 | 2.75 | 2.06 |
| Inventory Turnover | 35.77 | 35.77 | 39.50 | 32.38 | 34.80 | 29.56 | 28.36 | 98.65 | 60.20 | 30.15 | 22.34 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 77.48 | 61.41 | 63.38 | 67.25 | 51.97 | 50.78 | 27.53 | 42.47 | 22.27 | 22.63 |
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 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | 5.6% | 7.2% | 50.9% | 40.1% | — | — | 54.0% | 73.8% | 13.7% | 16.9% | 7.2% |
| Payout Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 65.7% | — | 132.3% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 20.9% | — | 4.2% |
| FCF Yield | 7.3% | 9.2% | 8.6% | 6.8% | 78.3% | 22.0% | 44.5% | — | — | 0.3% | — |
| Buyback Yield | 23.6% | 30.0% | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 80.5% | 0.0% | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 29.2% | 37.3% | 51.3% | 40.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 54.1% | 100.0% | 13.7% | 18.1% | 7.2% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $127M | $132M | $132M | $131M | $130M | $129M | $127M | $123M | $121M | $112M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 18 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 NGL stock.
NGL Energy Partners LP's current P/E ratio is -4.6x. The historical average is 38.9x.
NGL Energy Partners LP's current EV/EBITDA is 8.3x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 13.1x.
NGL Energy Partners LP's return on equity (ROE) is -52.1%. The historical average is -4.9%.
Based on historical data, NGL Energy Partners LP is trading at a P/E of -4.6x. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
NGL Energy Partners LP's current dividend yield is 5.61%.
NGL Energy Partners LP has 23.7% gross margin and 12.2% operating margin. Operating margin between 10-20% is typical for established companies.
NGL Energy Partners LP's Debt/EBITDA ratio is 5.2x, indicating high leverage. A ratio above 4x may signal elevated financial risk.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Revenue volatility and impairments
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Margin Expansion Masks Earnings Volatility
Gross margin surged to 30.9% in 2027Q1 from 11.2% in 2025Q3, yet net margin swung from -34.3% to 8.0%, per reported figures, indicating non-operating items dominate earnings.
The 19.7 percentage point gross margin improvement suggests a favorable mix shift, but the extreme net margin volatility—driven by impairments and one-time charges—implies that operating margin (14.7% in 2027Q1) is a more reliable gauge of core profitability. Investors should monitor whether the margin expansion is sustainable given historical swings.
ROIC Recovery Still Below Cost of Capital
ROIC improved to 3.1% in 2027Q1 from 1.4% in 2024Q4, but remains below the cost of capital, as per financial statements, suggesting value creation is still nascent.
The gradual rise in ROIC from 1.4% to 3.1% over ten quarters indicates improving capital efficiency, yet the absolute level is low for a midstream operator. The 2026Q4 ROE of -111.6% highlights the distortion from equity write-downs, making ROIC the more stable metric. Sustained improvement will require continued margin expansion and disciplined capital allocation.
Working Capital Efficiency Shows Mixed Signals
CCC improved to 6 days in 2027Q1 from 13 days in 2024Q4, driven by stable DSO and DPO, but asset turnover remains low at 0.24, per reported data, indicating capital intensity.
The reduction in cash conversion cycle from 13 to 6 days reflects better working capital management, with DSO steady around 60 days and DPO at 63 days. However, asset turnover of 0.24 suggests the asset base is not generating sufficient revenue, possibly due to impairments and a shrinking asset footprint. Efficiency gains appear modest and may be offset by episodic capital expenditures.
Leverage Collapse Masks Refinancing Risk
D/E plummeted to 0.04 in 2027Q1 from 2.95 in 2024Q4, with D/EBITDA at 0.61, yet interest coverage of 2.14 remains thin, per financial statements, suggesting refinancing risk persists.
The dramatic deleveraging—total debt down to $129M—appears to be a balance sheet restructuring, but the 2026Q4 equity near zero and negative retained earnings indicate the improvement may be artificial. Interest coverage of 2.14 is low for a midstream company, implying that even modest earnings declines could strain debt service. Investors should monitor the sustainability of the equity infusion and the terms of any new debt.
Thin Cash Buffer Despite Improved Ratios
Current ratio improved to 1.14 in 2027Q1, but cash stands at only $5.1M, down from $38.9M in 2024Q4, per balance sheet data, indicating a tight liquidity position.
The current ratio above 1 suggests adequate short-term asset coverage, but the minimal cash balance—less than 1% of total assets—leaves little room for operational shocks. The quick ratio of 1.04 indicates inventory is not a major liquidity concern, but the reliance on receivables and payables management could be strained if commodity prices turn. A severe downturn could expose the company to liquidity stress.
EV/EBITDA Misleads on True Leverage
EV/EBITDA of 8.66 appears reasonable, but with D/EBITDA at 0.61 and interest coverage of 2.14, the metric understates refinancing risk, as per reported figures, warranting a focus on cash flow coverage.
For a midstream partnership with volatile EBITDA, EV/EBITDA can be misleading because it does not capture the quality of earnings or the sustainability of cash flows. The low D/EBITDA suggests low leverage, but the thin interest coverage and negative retained earnings indicate that EBITDA may not translate into distributable cash flow. Analysts should use FCF yield and interest coverage ratios instead, as they better reflect the company's ability to service debt and fund distributions.