Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 37.4x · EV/EBITDA 25.5x · ROE 13.1%. (2016–2025 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 | $3.2B | $2.2B | $2.1B | $1.4B | $887M | $903M | $754M | $1.0B | $631M | $670M | — |
| Enterprise Value | $3.2B | $2.2B | $2.1B | $1.5B | $1.1B | $1.1B | $940M | $1.2B | $968M | $661M | — |
| P/E Ratio → | 37.37 | 30.06 | 28.84 | — | 16.66 | — | — | — | 62.56 | 21.73 | — |
| P/S Ratio | 3.08 | 2.24 | 2.33 | 1.74 | 1.62 | 6.27 | 6.24 | 1.83 | 1.17 | 1.32 | — |
| P/B Ratio | 5.95 | 3.96 | 3.77 | 3.18 | 2.43 | 3.07 | 2.35 | 1.59 | — | 2.97 | — |
| P/FCF | 33.52 | 31.41 | 28.98 | 23.80 | 44.50 | — | — | — | 23.04 | 9.93 | — |
| P/OCF | 37.84 | 25.74 | 26.50 | 21.76 | 35.83 | — | — | — | 19.49 | 9.55 | — |
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 | — | 2.32 | 2.40 | 1.92 | 1.98 | 7.66 | 7.77 | 2.20 | 1.79 | 1.30 | — |
| EV / EBITDA | 25.55 | 19.75 | 20.95 | 19.97 | 28.87 | — | — | 159.05 | 16.53 | 13.74 | — |
| EV / EBIT | 37.01 | 27.41 | 24.67 | 90.10 | 15.57 | — | — | 61.98 | 19.96 | 17.18 | — |
| EV / FCF | — | 32.55 | 29.75 | 26.26 | 54.29 | — | — | — | 35.34 | 9.81 | — |
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 | 11.0% | 11.0% | 16.7% | 16.0% | 15.3% | 5.9% | -15.1% | 7.7% | 14.4% | 13.1% | 10.9% |
| Operating Margin | 9.1% | 9.1% | 8.7% | 6.8% | 2.8% | -36.1% | -219.1% | -2.5% | 9.0% | 7.6% | 5.0% |
| Net Profit Margin | 7.5% | 7.5% | 8.1% | -0.4% | 9.7% | -47.6% | -238.1% | -10.8% | 1.8% | 6.1% | 3.1% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 13.1% | 13.1% | 14.7% | -0.7% | 16.1% | -22.3% | -59.5% | -23.4% | 20.2% | 13.2% | 6.1% |
| ROA | 9.9% | 9.9% | 10.0% | -0.4% | 7.6% | -9.9% | -35.4% | -10.2% | 3.7% | 11.5% | 5.4% |
| ROIC | 10.7% | 10.7% | 9.9% | 7.1% | 2.2% | -7.8% | -29.2% | -1.9% | 17.1% | 12.6% | 7.4% |
| ROCE | 13.4% | 13.4% | 12.1% | 8.5% | 2.4% | -8.0% | -34.5% | -2.5% | 21.1% | 16.0% | 9.5% |
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 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.20 | 0.39 | 0.62 | 0.78 | 0.72 | 0.34 | — | — | — |
| Debt / EBITDA | 0.84 | 0.84 | 1.10 | 2.24 | 6.06 | — | — | 28.47 | 6.02 | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.33 | 0.53 | 0.68 | 0.58 | 0.32 | — | -0.04 | -0.03 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.54 | 1.88 | 5.20 | — | — | 26.69 | 5.76 | -0.18 | -0.18 |
| Debt / FCF | — | 1.14 | 0.77 | 2.47 | 9.78 | — | — | — | 12.30 | -0.13 | -0.09 |
| Interest Coverage | 15.70 | 15.70 | 8.65 | 0.79 | 4.41 | -4.06 | -16.85 | 1.02 | 1.42 | — | — |
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 | 1.91 | 1.91 | 2.03 | 1.57 | 1.69 | 1.71 | 2.22 | 1.76 | 1.87 | 1.70 | 2.54 |
| Quick Ratio | 1.10 | 1.10 | 1.45 | 0.98 | 1.12 | 1.15 | 1.48 | 1.06 | 1.13 | 1.02 | 1.27 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.72 | 0.34 | 0.46 | 0.60 | 1.17 | 0.27 | 0.35 | 0.23 | 0.25 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 1.36 | 1.20 | 1.12 | 0.76 | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0.61 | 1.98 | 1.90 | 1.73 |
| Inventory Turnover | 14.54 | 14.54 | 15.95 | 14.04 | 11.62 | 4.60 | 5.12 | 14.39 | 14.36 | 17.41 | 12.68 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 18.20 | 18.87 | 18.75 | 22.42 | 49.37 | 9.04 | 19.81 | 17.11 | 16.76 | 15.97 |
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 | 0.5% | 0.8% | 0.4% | — | — | — | 0.3% | 0.4% | 2.5% | 9.1% | — |
| Payout Ratio | 24.4% | 24.4% | 11.4% | — | — | — | — | — | 158.7% | 195.7% | 472.0% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | 2.7% | 3.3% | 3.5% | — | 6.0% | — | — | — | 1.6% | 4.6% | — |
| FCF Yield | 3.0% | 3.2% | 3.5% | 4.2% | 2.2% | — | — | — | 4.3% | 10.1% | — |
| Buyback Yield | 2.4% | 3.5% | 0.9% | 0.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 2.9% | 4.3% | 1.3% | 0.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.4% | 2.5% | 9.1% | — |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $104M | $105M | $98M | $95M | $90M | $74M | $61M | $63M | $70M | $70M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 10 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 OSW stock.
OneSpaWorld Holdings Ltd's current P/E ratio is 37.4x. The historical average is 32.0x. This places it at the 80th percentile of its historical range.
OneSpaWorld Holdings Ltd's current EV/EBITDA is 25.5x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 20.0x.
OneSpaWorld Holdings Ltd's return on equity (ROE) is 13.1%. The historical average is -2.3%.
Based on historical data, OneSpaWorld Holdings Ltd is trading at a P/E of 37.4x. This is at the 80th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
OneSpaWorld Holdings Ltd's current dividend yield is 0.54% with a payout ratio of 24.4%.
OneSpaWorld Holdings Ltd has 11.0% gross margin and 9.1% operating margin.
OneSpaWorld Holdings Ltd's Debt/EBITDA ratio is 0.8x, indicating low leverage. A ratio below 2x is generally considered financially healthy.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Cruise partner concentration and thin margins
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Premium Multiples Demand Sustained Growth
Based on reported figures, OSW trades at 45.12x trailing earnings and 26.61x forward earnings, a premium that implies the market expects earnings growth to continue well beyond the recent quarterly EPS recovery.
The gap between trailing and forward P/E of roughly 17 turns suggests consensus anticipates meaningful earnings expansion, which is consistent with the in-line $0.28 EPS print and the streak of record revenue. Relative to a 3.29x price-to-sales multiple and 28.78x EV/EBITDA, the stock is priced as a growth asset rather than a cash-yield asset, with a dividend yield of only 0.5%. Investors should monitor whether margin expansion keeps pace, since at a roughly 11% gross margin the valuation depends heavily on operating leverage materializing.
Thin Gross Margins Anchor Earnings Power
As reported in financial statements, OSW's gross margin ranged from 10.5% to 17.4% across the ten quarters, with the latest quarter at 16.5%, reflecting the sensitivity of revenue-share economics to cruise partner terms.
The wide swing in gross margin, including a trough near 11.1% in 2025Q4, indicates that cost of services absorbs most volatility in the revenue-share structure. Operating margin of 10.8% in 2026Q3 versus 7.7% in 2025Q1 suggests some operating leverage is emerging as revenue scales. Net margin tracking in a similar band implies earnings quality depends on continued stability in partner commission rates rather than on cost-cutting alone.
Returns Recovering From Low Base
According to recent SEC filings, OSW's ROIC rose to 3.6% in 2026Q3 from 2.1% in 2025Q1, a recovery that remains modest in absolute terms and below typical cost-of-capital thresholds.
The improvement in ROE from 2.2% to 4.9% and ROA from 1.7% to 3.9% over the period is directionally positive, but the absolute levels are low for a business that carries a substantial goodwill base. Because ROIC is computed against an asset base that is roughly 69% goodwill, the metric may understate economic returns on operating capacity while overstating how efficiently acquired capital is being deployed. The trend suggests compounding is nascent rather than established.
Low Debt Load Supports Coverage Comfort
Based on reported figures, OSW's debt-to-equity fell from 0.21 in 2025Q1 to 0.14 in 2026Q3, while interest coverage has ranged widely between roughly 2x and 5x across recent quarters.
Declining leverage alongside improving debt-to-EBITDA suggests debt service is becoming more comfortable over time. The volatility in interest coverage, however, implies that quarterly EBIT is not yet stable enough to rely on a single period as a reference point. Refinancing risk appears limited given the modest debt balance relative to equity, though this assessment rests on reported figures alone.
Negative Book Tangibility Masks Fragility
Based on reported figures, OSW's headline equity of $570.9M rests on $498.8M of goodwill, so tangible equity is negative and the low debt-to-equity ratio may flatter the balance sheet's loss-absorbing capacity.
The most commonly misapplied ratio for this business model is debt-to-equity, because book equity is dominated by acquired intangibles rather than productive assets. Tangible book value or a debt-to-tangible-capital measure would present a more conservative view of leverage. Investors should monitor whether impairment risk on goodwill could erode reported equity if cruise partner relationships weaken.