Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -13.5x · EV/EBITDA N/A · ROE -5.8%. (1997–2025 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 | $34M | $30M | $31M | $52M | $52M | $69M | $89M | $52M | $57M | $63M | $85M |
| Enterprise Value | $21M | $17M | $18M | $35M | $39M | $25M | $63M | $30M | $38M | $10M | $34M |
| P/E Ratio → | -13.55 | — | — | — | — | 4.86 | — | — | 7.43 | 15.00 | 3.66 |
| P/S Ratio | 227.12 | 199.54 | 309.23 | 19.94 | — | 1.92 | 20.12 | 17.21 | 2.56 | 3.85 | 1.30 |
| P/B Ratio | 0.86 | 0.76 | 0.70 | 1.02 | 0.95 | 1.15 | 1.80 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 1.16 | 1.60 |
| P/FCF | — | — | — | 156.69 | — | 3.57 | — | — | 7.08 | 11.25 | 2.83 |
| P/OCF | — | — | — | 156.69 | — | 3.55 | — | — | 6.99 | 9.35 | 2.83 |
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 | — | 110.20 | 178.01 | 13.45 | — | 0.69 | 14.33 | 9.79 | 1.71 | 0.62 | 0.52 |
| EV / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | 1.24 | — | — | 4.00 | 1.65 | 1.02 |
| EV / EBIT | — | — | — | — | — | 1.26 | — | — | 3.78 | 1.70 | 1.03 |
| EV / FCF | — | — | — | 105.71 | — | 1.27 | — | — | 4.74 | 1.82 | 1.13 |
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 | 72.0% | 72.0% | 72.0% | 66.4% | — | 66.3% | 95.0% | 71.0% | 63.5% | 69.8% | 60.4% |
| Operating Margin | -2204.0% | -2204.0% | -3621.0% | -85.9% | — | 54.4% | -54.8% | -77.5% | 41.5% | 36.6% | 49.3% |
| Net Profit Margin | -1613.3% | -1613.3% | -3034.0% | -56.0% | — | 39.6% | -38.8% | -59.0% | 34.9% | 25.1% | 35.7% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -5.8% | -5.8% | -6.4% | -2.8% | -4.0% | 26.1% | -3.3% | -3.2% | 13.7% | 7.7% | 56.9% |
| ROA | -5.6% | -5.6% | -6.2% | -2.6% | -3.8% | 24.6% | -3.2% | -3.1% | 13.1% | 7.2% | 52.8% |
| ROIC | -8.6% | -8.6% | -8.4% | -4.4% | -10.2% | 74.7% | -6.6% | -5.0% | 33.7% | 276.3% | 479.8% |
| ROCE | -7.9% | -7.9% | -7.5% | -4.1% | -6.7% | 35.7% | -4.7% | -4.2% | 16.3% | 11.2% | 78.7% |
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 | — | — | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | — | — | 0.00 | — | — | — |
| Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | -0.34 | -0.30 | -0.33 | -0.24 | -0.74 | -0.52 | -0.42 | -0.32 | -0.98 | -0.96 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | -2.24 | — | — | -1.98 | -8.54 | -1.55 |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | -50.98 | — | -2.29 | — | — | -2.34 | -9.43 | -1.70 |
| Interest Coverage | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Net cash position: cash ($13M) exceeds total debt ($0)
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 | 48.19 | 48.19 | 53.31 | 55.50 | 30.51 | 14.55 | 22.14 | 31.08 | 26.95 | 19.06 | 11.88 |
| Quick Ratio | 48.19 | 48.19 | 53.31 | 55.50 | 30.51 | 14.55 | 22.14 | 31.08 | 9.33 | 19.02 | 11.40 |
| Cash Ratio | 47.88 | 47.88 | 53.00 | 55.25 | 30.18 | 14.51 | 22.08 | 30.79 | 9.06 | 18.79 | 10.78 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 | — | 0.56 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.37 | 0.29 | 1.13 |
| Inventory Turnover | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.22 | 39.76 | 3.36 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 41.22 | 7.33 | 12.76 | 16.14 |
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 | 6.7% | 7.7% | 7.7% | 4.6% | 4.7% | 3.5% | 2.8% | 4.6% | 4.3% | 3.8% | — |
| Payout Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | 16.9% | — | — | 31.7% | 58.6% | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | — | — | — | — | — | 20.6% | — | — | 13.5% | 6.7% | 27.4% |
| FCF Yield | — | — | — | 0.6% | — | 28.0% | — | — | 14.1% | 8.9% | 35.3% |
| Buyback Yield | 0.9% | 1.0% | 4.2% | 1.9% | 1.0% | 1.6% | 0.3% | 1.5% | 2.8% | 3.3% | 0.1% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 7.6% | 8.6% | 11.8% | 6.4% | 5.7% | 5.0% | 3.1% | 6.1% | 7.2% | 7.1% | 0.1% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $23M | $23M | $24M | $24M | $25M | $24M | $24M | $25M | $26M | $25M |
Binary Litigation Outcome Dependency
According to recent market data, NTIP trades at a price-to-sales ratio of 228.65, which, when combined with a price-to-book ratio of 0.87, suggests that investors are valuing the company primarily as a pool of cash rather than a viable, growth-oriented intellectual property licensing business.
The extreme P/S multiple is a mathematical artifact of the company's near-zero revenue base rather than a signal of high growth expectations. Investors appear to be discounting the firm's future litigation prospects entirely, effectively pricing the equity as a liquidation play on the remaining $13.4 million cash balance.
As reported in financial statements, the company's operating margin of -2204% highlights a severe disconnect between fixed legal overhead and current revenue generation, indicating that the firm's earning power is currently non-existent and entirely dependent on the timing of unpredictable, non-recurring patent settlement events.
While the 72% gross margin suggests that the underlying IP licensing model is inherently scalable, the massive operating losses demonstrate that the cost of defending these patents is currently unsustainable. This structure implies that profitability is not a function of operational efficiency but rather a binary outcome of successful litigation.
Based on reported figures, the company's ROIC has consistently trended in negative territory, reaching -3.8% in 2026Q1, which confirms that the firm is currently destroying shareholder capital rather than compounding it through its transition to the high-risk HFT and Cox patent portfolios.
The persistent negative return on capital reflects the lack of productive assets capable of generating consistent cash flows. Without a major settlement to reset the capital base, the company appears to be in a cycle of value erosion where legal expenditures consistently outweigh the returns on invested capital.
As indicated by the quarterly liquidity metrics, the current ratio has fluctuated significantly, dropping from over 100 in 2025Q2 to 31.34 in 2026Q1, which suggests that while the company remains technically solvent, its liquidity buffer is rapidly depleting due to sustained cash burn from ongoing litigation.
The high current ratio is misleading because it is driven by cash reserves that are being actively consumed to fund legal proceedings. Investors should monitor the rate of cash depletion, as the current burn trajectory may force management to seek capital or accept suboptimal settlement terms prematurely.
The most commonly misapplied metric for this business model is the P/E ratio, which, at -13.64, obscures the reality that the company is not an operating entity with normalized earnings but a litigation vehicle where the primary value resides in the optionality of its patent portfolio.
Using P/E or EV/EBITDA to evaluate NTIP is fundamentally flawed because these metrics assume a steady-state business cycle that does not exist here. Instead, analysts should focus on the 'cash-burn-to-settlement' ratio and the probability-weighted net present value of the patent portfolio to better assess the firm's true worth.
Includes 30+ ratios · 29 years · Updated daily
DCF models, multiple analysis, and analyst estimates.
10-year return with dividends reinvested.
See how regular investing compounds over time.
Compare growth, multiples, and margins vs sector.
Quick answers to the most common questions about buying NTIP stock.
Network-1 Technologies, Inc.'s current P/E ratio is -13.5x. The historical average is 13.4x.
Network-1 Technologies, Inc.'s return on equity (ROE) is -5.8%. The historical average is -43.9%.
Based on historical data, Network-1 Technologies, Inc. is trading at a P/E of -13.5x. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Network-1 Technologies, Inc.'s current dividend yield is 6.74%.
Network-1 Technologies, Inc. has 72.0% gross margin and -2204.0% operating margin.