Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 33.3x · EV/EBITDA 14.1x · ROE 22.7%. (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 | $8.3B | $6.2B | $6.6B | $6.4B | $4.5B | $5.1B | $3.7B | $4.5B | $3.4B | $3.5B | $3.2B |
| Enterprise Value | $12.1B | $10.0B | $9.7B | $9.3B | $7.2B | $8.0B | $6.5B | $6.8B | $5.8B | $5.1B | $4.7B |
| P/E Ratio → | 33.35 | 25.10 | 23.82 | 20.53 | 35.10 | — | — | 35.09 | 12.97 | 20.12 | 20.26 |
| P/S Ratio | 2.97 | 2.42 | 2.84 | 2.96 | 2.51 | 5.39 | 7.10 | 2.81 | 2.69 | 2.99 | 2.81 |
| P/B Ratio | 7.19 | 5.15 | 7.10 | 6.96 | 11.11 | — | 11.61 | 5.20 | 4.54 | 1.79 | 1.72 |
| P/FCF | 25.03 | 26.85 | 39.38 | 18.24 | 13.71 | 56.72 | 379.17 | 8.81 | 10.67 | 11.99 | 11.01 |
| P/OCF | 14.11 | 10.57 | 11.52 | 11.47 | 10.78 | 45.50 | — | 12.70 | 10.67 | 11.99 | 11.01 |
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 | — | 3.89 | 4.14 | 4.31 | 3.98 | 8.49 | 12.47 | 4.24 | 4.53 | 4.29 | 4.07 |
| EV / EBITDA | 14.11 | 13.09 | 13.32 | 13.99 | 13.41 | 49.31 | — | 14.14 | 17.23 | 17.12 | 14.45 |
| EV / EBIT | 24.84 | 20.24 | 19.74 | 20.25 | 22.30 | — | — | 24.46 | 16.43 | 26.32 | 20.63 |
| EV / FCF | — | 43.18 | 57.39 | 26.56 | 21.74 | 89.32 | 665.76 | 13.31 | 17.93 | 17.17 | 15.93 |
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 | 9.9% | 9.9% | 36.1% | 32.9% | 32.1% | 21.4% | -5.1% | 32.5% | 30.9% | 31.0% | 30.7% |
| Operating Margin | 18.9% | 18.9% | 21.0% | 21.0% | 18.1% | -6.2% | -57.9% | 16.7% | 16.8% | 15.6% | 18.6% |
| Net Profit Margin | 9.4% | 9.4% | 11.6% | 14.4% | 7.1% | -18.8% | -79.6% | 9.1% | 20.8% | 14.9% | 13.9% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 22.7% | 22.7% | 29.3% | 47.0% | 66.9% | -118.6% | -70.3% | 18.0% | 19.3% | 9.1% | 14.1% |
| ROA | 4.3% | 4.3% | 5.2% | 6.7% | 3.4% | -5.0% | -10.9% | 3.7% | 8.3% | 7.1% | 6.7% |
| ROIC | 8.2% | 8.2% | 9.4% | 9.9% | 8.2% | -1.5% | -7.2% | 6.4% | 4.9% | 4.0% | 6.3% |
| ROCE | 9.0% | 9.0% | 10.5% | 10.9% | 9.7% | -1.8% | -8.5% | 7.3% | 7.3% | 8.2% | 9.8% |
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 | 3.54 | 3.54 | 3.76 | 3.82 | 7.33 | — | 8.95 | 3.08 | 3.23 | 0.80 | 0.80 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 5.60 | 5.60 | 4.84 | 5.27 | 5.58 | 18.87 | — | 5.54 | 7.29 | 5.37 | 4.64 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 3.13 | 3.25 | 3.17 | 6.51 | — | 8.77 | 2.66 | 3.09 | 0.77 | 0.77 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 4.95 | 4.95 | 4.18 | 4.38 | 4.95 | 18.00 | — | 4.79 | 6.98 | 5.17 | 4.46 |
| Debt / FCF | — | 16.33 | 18.01 | 8.32 | 8.03 | 32.60 | 286.59 | 4.50 | 7.26 | 5.18 | 4.92 |
| Interest Coverage | 2.06 | 2.06 | 2.17 | 2.17 | 2.17 | -0.51 | -2.75 | 2.12 | 4.69 | 2.92 | 3.55 |
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 | 73.13 | 73.13 | 1.50 | 1.77 | 1.71 | 0.73 | 1.18 | 2.25 | 1.06 | 1.17 | 0.91 |
| Quick Ratio | 73.13 | 73.13 | 1.47 | 1.74 | 1.68 | 0.72 | 1.15 | 2.22 | 1.03 | 1.13 | 0.87 |
| Cash Ratio | 66.07 | 66.07 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 0.84 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 1.15 | 0.32 | 0.26 | 0.29 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.42 | 0.45 | 0.42 | 0.45 | 0.26 | 0.15 | 0.39 | 0.33 | 0.47 | 0.48 |
| Inventory Turnover | — | — | 92.67 | 103.46 | 101.84 | 88.26 | 77.01 | 104.93 | 89.64 | 101.50 | 98.75 |
| 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 | 3.3% | 4.6% | 4.0% | 2.8% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 2.7% | 4.1% | 5.0% | 4.6% | 4.7% |
| Payout Ratio | 117.3% | 117.3% | 98.0% | 56.6% | 4.5% | — | — | 125.8% | 65.1% | 91.8% | 94.9% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | 3.0% | 4.0% | 4.2% | 4.9% | 2.8% | — | — | 2.9% | 7.7% | 5.0% | 4.9% |
| FCF Yield | 4.0% | 3.7% | 2.5% | 5.5% | 7.3% | 1.8% | 0.3% | 11.4% | 9.4% | 8.3% | 9.1% |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.8% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 3.3% | 4.6% | 4.2% | 2.8% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 2.8% | 4.1% | 5.1% | 4.7% | 5.4% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $66M | $64M | $58M | $55M | $55M | $55M | $52M | $52M | $51M | $51M |
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 RHP stock.
Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc.'s current P/E ratio is 33.3x. The historical average is 31.5x. This places it at the 68th percentile of its historical range.
Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc.'s current EV/EBITDA is 14.1x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 21.4x.
Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc.'s return on equity (ROE) is 22.7%. This is above the typical threshold of 15-20% considered good for most companies. The historical average is 6.0%.
Based on historical data, Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc. is trading at a P/E of 33.3x. This is at the 68th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc.'s current dividend yield is 3.28% with a payout ratio of 117.3%.
Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc. has 9.9% gross margin and 18.9% operating margin. Operating margin between 10-20% is typical for established companies.
Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc.'s Debt/EBITDA ratio is 5.6x, indicating high leverage. A ratio above 4x may signal elevated financial risk.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Leverage constraining cash flow flexibility
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Premium Multiples Without REIT Cash Earnings Anchor
Based on reported figures, RHP trades at a 34.93 trailing P/E and 15.79 EV/EBITDA, but P/FFO and P/AFFO cannot be confirmed from the supplied data, leaving the multiple difficult to reconcile with REIT cash earnings.
The 34.93 P/E and 7.17 price-to-book suggest the market is capitalizing RHP on something beyond book value or GAAP earnings, plausibly the Gaylord moat and Entertainment optionality. Because P/FFO is unavailable for most recent periods, the implied cap rate cannot be cleanly benchmarked against peers like HST and PK, which warrants further investigation before assuming the premium is justified.
Volatile NOI Margins Mask Underlying Trend
As reported in the quarterly ratio data, RHP's NOI margin swung from 11.0% in 2025Q4 to 29.8% in 2026Q3, with FFO per share ranging between $1.65 and $2.52 over the ten-quarter window.
The wide NOI margin range appears driven more by seasonal group-booking timing and cost recognition than by a durable structural shift, though the 2026Q3 recovery to 29.8% warrants scrutiny. FFO growth has alternated sharply between positive and negative prints, which suggests organic property performance has not yet produced a stable earnings base.
Thin AFFO Coverage Limits Payout Buffer
Based on reported figures, RHP's FFO payout ratio ranged from 41.6% to 67.5% across recent quarters, with AFFO turning negative at -$0.22 per share in 2024Q3 and leaving limited margin for error.
A payout ratio that reaches 67.5% in weaker quarters indicates that the distribution absorbs a large share of FFO when earnings dip. The negative AFFO quarter and the 3.3% dividend yield together suggest investors should monitor whether capital spending requirements constrain future distribution growth.
Debt-Funded Asset Growth Strains Coverage
According to reported balance sheet figures, RHP's debt-to-equity ratio peaked at 3.78 in 2024Q3 and stood at 3.54 in 2025Q4, while interest coverage stayed between 1.47 and 3.07 over the period.
The gap between asset growth and equity growth suggests the balance sheet has expanded largely through debt-funded property additions. Interest coverage repeatedly falling near 1.5x leaves little cushion if rates rise or operating income softens, and refinancing exposure should be monitored given the reported total debt of $4.3B.
Price-to-Book Misapplied to Asset-Heavy REIT
Based on reported figures, RHP's 7.17 price-to-book ratio is often read as a valuation signal, yet book equity is depressed by depreciation and debt-funded asset growth, making it a misleading gauge of true asset value.
Book equity ranged from $531.5M to $1.4B while PP&E grew to $6.5B, so P/B mainly reflects accounting treatment rather than the market value of the Gaylord and Opry real estate. A gross-asset or NAV-based framework, with implied cap rate on NOI, would better capture what the market is paying for, and P/FFO should replace P/B where the data permits.