Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 20.1x · EV/EBITDA 11.6x · ROE 8.3%. (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 | $18.8B | $19.8B | $16.8B | $11.9B | $12.1B | $11.5B | $8.8B | $10.5B | $9.0B | $8.5B | $7.2B |
| Enterprise Value | $34.9B | $35.9B | $30.6B | $23.8B | $23.6B | $21.4B | $18.6B | $20.0B | $18.1B | $17.5B | $15.0B |
| P/E Ratio → | 20.13 | 21.42 | 22.69 | 17.94 | 16.13 | 21.74 | — | 32.00 | — | 65.82 | 21.71 |
| P/S Ratio | 2.83 | 2.98 | 3.07 | 2.16 | 2.07 | 2.35 | 1.88 | 2.01 | 1.77 | 1.74 | 1.59 |
| P/B Ratio | 1.60 | 1.70 | 1.57 | 1.17 | 1.54 | 1.58 | 1.51 | 1.75 | 1.57 | 1.97 | 1.76 |
| P/FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | 7.97 | 8.39 | 9.41 | 6.15 | 8.61 | 9.46 | 7.99 | 6.61 | 16.73 | 11.44 | 8.92 |
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 | — | 5.41 | 5.60 | 4.32 | 4.04 | 4.37 | 3.98 | 3.84 | 3.53 | 3.58 | 3.35 |
| EV / EBITDA | 11.63 | 11.96 | 12.23 | 10.79 | 11.32 | 12.21 | 14.61 | 12.45 | 24.93 | 11.71 | 10.65 |
| EV / EBIT | 19.03 | 19.36 | 20.03 | 18.08 | 17.78 | 20.41 | 54.90 | 22.60 | 127.16 | 21.46 | 17.15 |
| EV / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 | 58.6% | 58.6% | 51.5% | 45.0% | 38.5% | 41.9% | 42.4% | 44.5% | 19.6% | 36.0% | 36.9% |
| Operating Margin | 27.6% | 27.6% | 26.7% | 23.5% | 21.6% | 20.6% | 11.8% | 17.1% | 2.4% | 18.9% | 19.3% |
| Net Profit Margin | 14.0% | 14.0% | 13.9% | 13.0% | 13.7% | 11.9% | -0.4% | 7.4% | -1.0% | 2.6% | 7.4% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 8.3% | 8.3% | 7.3% | 7.9% | 10.6% | 8.9% | -0.3% | 6.5% | -1.0% | 3.1% | 8.4% |
| ROA | 2.7% | 2.7% | 2.4% | 2.5% | 3.2% | 2.5% | -0.1% | 1.7% | -0.2% | 0.7% | 1.8% |
| ROIC | 5.3% | 5.3% | 4.7% | 4.7% | 5.2% | 4.6% | 2.6% | 4.4% | 0.7% | 5.5% | 5.7% |
| ROCE | 6.0% | 6.0% | 5.4% | 5.4% | 5.8% | 4.9% | 2.8% | 4.9% | 0.7% | 5.8% | 5.8% |
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 | 1.39 | 1.39 | 1.31 | 1.39 | 1.46 | 1.37 | 1.70 | 1.62 | 1.59 | 2.08 | 1.94 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 5.41 | 5.41 | 5.59 | 6.41 | 5.52 | 5.69 | 7.79 | 6.03 | 12.61 | 6.04 | 5.60 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 1.38 | 1.29 | 1.17 | 1.45 | 1.36 | 1.68 | 1.60 | 1.57 | 2.08 | 1.94 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 5.36 | 5.36 | 5.52 | 5.39 | 5.50 | 5.65 | 7.70 | 5.94 | 12.45 | 6.02 | 5.58 |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | 2.90 | 2.90 | 2.95 | 2.69 | 3.69 | 3.08 | 0.92 | 2.34 | 0.40 | 2.30 | 2.51 |
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 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.51 | 0.85 | 0.55 | 0.70 | 0.73 | 0.49 | 0.51 | 0.55 | 0.51 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.56 | 0.56 | 0.41 | 0.76 | 0.39 | 0.52 | 0.55 | 0.38 | 0.40 | 0.41 | 0.37 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.43 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.24 | 0.24 |
| Inventory Turnover | 6.12 | 6.12 | 6.80 | 6.02 | 4.79 | 5.71 | 6.72 | 6.80 | 9.74 | 6.62 | 5.74 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 | 2.8% | 2.7% | 2.9% | 3.5% | 3.1% | 3.0% | 3.6% | 2.9% | 3.0% | 2.7% | 2.9% |
| Payout Ratio | 57.1% | 57.1% | 63.3% | 57.9% | 47.4% | 59.0% | — | 77.9% | — | 178.3% | 62.0% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | 5.0% | 4.7% | 4.4% | 5.6% | 6.2% | 4.6% | — | 3.1% | — | 1.5% | 4.6% |
| FCF Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 2.8% | 2.7% | 2.9% | 3.5% | 3.1% | 3.0% | 3.6% | 2.9% | 3.1% | 2.8% | 3.0% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $475M | $456M | $448M | $443M | $417M | $384M | $376M | $357M | $331M | $324M |
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 NI stock.
NiSource Inc's current P/E ratio is 20.1x. The historical average is 14.6x. This places it at the 71th percentile of its historical range.
NiSource Inc's current EV/EBITDA is 11.6x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 8.9x.
NiSource Inc's return on equity (ROE) is 8.3%. The historical average is 7.2%.
Based on historical data, NiSource Inc is trading at a P/E of 20.1x. This is at the 71th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
NiSource Inc's current dividend yield is 2.85% with a payout ratio of 57.1%.
NiSource Inc has 58.6% gross margin and 27.6% operating margin. Operating margin above 20% indicates strong pricing power and cost efficiency.
NiSource Inc's Debt/EBITDA ratio is 5.4x, indicating high leverage. A ratio above 4x may signal elevated financial risk.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
High leverage and negative FCF
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Premium Multiple Anchored to Rate Base
NiSource trades at 21.5x trailing earnings, a premium to gas peers like Spire (18.9x) and ONE Gas (18.4x), reflecting its multi-state regulatory portfolio and growth prospects, as per recent market data.
The P/E premium over pure-play gas LDCs appears justified by NiSource's larger scale and diversified regulatory jurisdictions, which reduce single-state risk. However, the 2.7% dividend yield is below the peer average of ~3.1%, suggesting investors are paying for growth rather than income. With 10-year Treasury yields near 4%, the yield spread is thin, making the stock sensitive to rate movements; a 50bp rise in rates could compress the multiple.
Earned ROE Trails Authorized Levels
NiSource's trailing twelve-month ROE stands at 2.1%, well below typical authorized returns of 9-10%, according to reported figures, indicating significant regulatory lag and seasonal earnings concentration.
The quarterly ROE pattern shows Q1 spikes (4.3-4.4%) driven by winter heating demand, while Q2-Q3 fall to 0.4-0.9%, reflecting the seasonal nature of gas sales. Even the best quarter's ROE is roughly half the allowed return, suggesting that either the authorized ROE is not being fully earned or that rate base growth is outpacing earnings recognition. This gap may indicate that the company is earning below its cost of equity, which could pressure the stock if not corrected through rate cases.
Pass-Through Costs Mask Margin Stability
Operating margins fluctuate between 17% and 35% quarterly, but net margins remain thin at 3-21%, according to recent financial statements, reflecting the pass-through nature of fuel costs and the impact of weather on volumes.
The wide quarterly swings in operating margin are largely due to revenue seasonality, not cost inefficiency. The gross margin of 58.6% indicates that a significant portion of revenue is consumed by purchased gas and fuel, which are recovered dollar-for-dollar. The stable net margin in Q1 quarters (21.5%) versus Q2-Q3 (3-8%) highlights the criticality of winter weather; a warm winter could compress full-year earnings. Regulatory mechanisms like decoupling would mitigate this, but their absence in some jurisdictions leaves earnings exposed.
Leverage Creeps Toward Regulatory Limits
Debt-to-capital has risen to 0.60 in 2026Q2 from 0.57 a year earlier, according to balance sheet data, while interest coverage fell to 1.24x, indicating increased financial risk as the capital program accelerates.
The debt-to-capital ratio is approaching the upper bound of typical utility authorized leverage (often 55-60%), and the interest coverage of 1.24x in the latest quarter is dangerously low, though it is seasonally depressed. FFO/debt of 2.96% is well below the 10-12% typically required for a strong credit rating, suggesting that credit agencies may be monitoring the company closely. The reliance on debt to fund the $30.5B rate base, with equity growing only 21% versus assets up 28%, indicates that leverage will likely remain elevated until cash flows improve.
Dividend Covered but Growth Dependent
Dividend payout ratio averaged 52% over the last year, according to reported figures, but spiked to 139% in Q2-Q3 quarters, indicating that coverage is thin outside the winter heating season.
The annualized payout ratio of 52% is within the typical utility range, but the quarterly volatility reveals that dividends are not fully covered by earnings in off-peak quarters. Operating cash flow covered dividends by 4.0x on average, providing a cushion, but the negative free cash flow of $3.3B over the past three years means the dividend is being funded through external financing. This suggests that dividend growth will be limited unless the capital program generates incremental cash flow or regulatory lag is reduced.
Premium Valuation vs Gas Peers
NiSource's P/E of 21.5x is above Atmos (22.7x) and CenterPoint (25.3x) but below its gas-heavy peers, while its EV/EBITDA of 12.1x is lower than ATO's 16.3x, according to peer data.
The valuation premium over Spire and ONE Gas appears justified by NiSource's larger scale and diversified regulatory portfolio, which reduces single-state risk. However, its ROE of 2.1% is far below the peer average of ~11%, indicating that the market is pricing in future improvement from rate base growth. The lower EV/EBITDA relative to Atmos suggests that the market is not fully crediting NiSource's growth potential, possibly due to concerns about leverage and regulatory lag. If the company can close the earned ROE gap, the multiple could expand further.
Misapplied P/E Ignores Rate Base Growth
Comparing NiSource's P/E to industrial companies is misleading because utilities' earnings are regulated and tied to rate base, not market growth; a better metric is P/E relative to allowed ROE and rate base growth.
The P/E ratio for a utility is anchored to the authorized ROE and interest rates, not to earnings growth potential. NiSource's P/E of 21.5x may appear high relative to the S&P 500, but it reflects the stability of regulated cash flows and the expectation of rate base growth. A more appropriate valuation metric is the price-to-rate base ratio or the implied ROE versus allowed ROE. Investors should focus on the spread between earned and allowed ROE, as a narrowing gap would signal improving regulatory outcomes and support the premium multiple.