Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -198.9x · EV/EBITDA N/A · ROE -18.8%. (2019–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $42.6B | $37.0B | $12.6B | $2.7B | $1.8B | $5.6B | $4.5B | — |
| Enterprise Value | $42.0B | $36.4B | $12.8B | $2.7B | $1.7B | $5.0B | $4.5B | — |
| P/E Ratio → | -198.95 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | 70.81 | 61.51 | 28.96 | 10.89 | 8.33 | 89.23 | 128.80 | — |
| P/B Ratio | 22.69 | 21.50 | 33.03 | 4.80 | 2.61 | 7.95 | — | — |
| P/FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EV / Revenue | — | 60.56 | 29.41 | 10.95 | 7.90 | 80.19 | 128.07 | — |
| EV / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBIT | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 34.4% | 34.4% | 26.6% | 21.0% | 9.0% | -3.0% | -33.6% | -2.2% |
| Operating Margin | -38.0% | -38.0% | -43.5% | -72.7% | -64.1% | -164.0% | -156.3% | -68.0% |
| Net Profit Margin | -32.9% | -32.9% | -43.6% | -74.6% | -64.4% | -188.5% | -156.4% | -62.7% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -18.8% | -18.8% | -40.6% | -29.7% | -19.8% | -44.1% | — | -22.1% |
| ROA | -11.3% | -11.3% | -17.9% | -18.9% | -13.8% | -20.1% | -28.7% | -15.6% |
| ROIC | -19.9% | -19.9% | -24.8% | -23.2% | -28.2% | -56.3% | — | -36.6% |
| ROCE | -16.1% | -16.1% | -24.3% | -23.0% | -15.8% | -19.9% | -36.3% | -20.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debt / Equity | 0.15 | 0.15 | 1.22 | 0.32 | 0.23 | 0.18 | — | 0.19 |
| Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | -0.33 | 0.52 | 0.03 | -0.13 | -0.81 | — | -0.51 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | -7.53 | -7.53 | -46.90 | -41.12 | -16.05 | -19.37 | — | — |
Net cash position: cash ($829M) exceeds total debt ($254M)
Short-term solvency ratios and asset-utilisation metrics
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio | 4.08 | 4.08 | 2.04 | 2.13 | 4.06 | 8.04 | 1.92 | 3.90 |
| Quick Ratio | 3.61 | 3.61 | 1.69 | 1.65 | 3.50 | 7.55 | 1.38 | 3.46 |
| Cash Ratio | 3.04 | 3.04 | 1.23 | 1.10 | 2.90 | 7.17 | 1.09 | 3.00 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.26 | 0.37 | 0.26 | 0.21 | 0.06 | 0.19 | 0.25 |
| Inventory Turnover | 2.49 | 2.49 | 2.69 | 1.79 | 2.08 | 1.34 | 1.80 | 3.49 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 74.59 | 93.32 | 92.22 | 82.11 | 111.49 | 110.51 | 62.21 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Payout Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| FCF Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.0% | — |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.0% | — |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $531M | $496M | $482M | $466M | $452M | $448M | $401M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 7 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 RKLB stock.
Rocket Lab USA, Inc.'s current P/E ratio is -198.9x. This places it at the 50th percentile of its historical range.
Rocket Lab USA, Inc.'s return on equity (ROE) is -18.8%. The historical average is -29.2%.
Based on historical data, Rocket Lab USA, Inc. is trading at a P/E of -198.9x. This is at the 50th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Rocket Lab USA, Inc. has 34.4% gross margin and -38.0% operating margin.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Neutron development cash burn duration
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Negative Returns Imply Value Destruction Phase
Rocket Lab's ROIC and ROE have consistently been negative, with the most recent Q2 2026 ROIC at -3.2% and ROE at -1.7%, indicating that the company is currently destroying economic value as it funds the capital-intensive Neutron development.
The negative returns on capital are a direct function of the operating losses incurred while scaling revenue and investing in new platforms. The improvement in ROIC from -7.2% in Q2 2025 to -3.2% in Q2 2026 suggests that the growing revenue base is beginning to absorb the fixed cost structure more effectively, but the business has not yet reached a point where it generates returns above its cost of capital. Until the Neutron program achieves operational and financial maturity, this capital-intensive investment phase is expected to suppress returns, a trend that warrants close monitoring for signs of margin stabilization.
Gross Margin Strength Contrasts with Operating Losses
Rocket Lab's gross margin expanded to 36.1% in Q2 2026, up from 25.6% a year prior, yet the operating margin remains deeply negative at -24.6%, highlighting a stark disconnect between product-level economics and the overhead of scaling the business.
The robust and improving gross margin indicates the company is successfully pricing its hardware and capturing value from its space systems offerings. However, the operating margin's persistent deficit, driven by R&D spending that now consumes over a third of revenue, reveals that the current scale does not yet support the corporate overhead and future platform investments. This margin profile is typical for a pre-profitability growth company in aerospace, where near-term profitability is sacrificed for long-term market positioning, but investors must monitor whether the operating loss narrows as a percentage of revenue as growth continues.
De Minimis Debt Facilitates Strategic Flexibility
Rocket Lab has deliberately reduced its financial leverage, bringing the debt-to-equity ratio from 1.22 in Q4 2024 to a negligible 0.04 by Q2 2026, a strategic shift that appears designed to maximize flexibility for funding the Neutron program.
The near-elimination of traditional debt suggests management is prioritizing a clean balance sheet to support future capital raises or maintain access to non-dilutive financing. This low-leverage position, coupled with a massive cash balance, means the company faces minimal traditional solvency risk and has significant runway to absorb continued operating losses. The primary financial risk has thus shifted from debt service to potential equity dilution if future capital needs exceed internal cash generation.
Long Cash Conversion Cycle Reflects Contract Structure
Rocket Lab's cash conversion cycle extended to 175 days in Q2 2026, driven primarily by 137 days of inventory on hand, a metric that appears to reflect the long-lead-time production cycles and milestone-based recognition inherent to satellite and launch contracts.
The elevated Days Inventory Outstanding suggests the company is holding significant work-in-progress and finished goods for large, multi-phase space systems contracts. This extended cycle length ties up working capital but may be a structural feature of the business rather than an operational inefficiency. The Days Sales Outstanding of 80 days indicates that collections from government and commercial customers are relatively timely given the contract terms, but the overall cycle length means the business must fund a substantial portion of its operations before receiving cash, impacting cash flow timing.
Substantial Cash Buffer Extends Runway Indefinitely
Rocket Lab holds $2.1 billion in cash against minimal current debt, resulting in a current ratio of 5.48 and a quick ratio of 4.98, providing a massive liquidity buffer that appears sufficient to fund operations and the Neutron program for multiple years.
The fortress-like liquidity position is the result of significant equity raises and provides a substantial cushion against the ongoing cash burn. The fact that the quick ratio is nearly equal to the current ratio indicates that the company is not reliant on inventory liquidation to meet short-term obligations. This strong cash position effectively removes near-term liquidity risk and gives management the strategic latitude to execute on long-term initiatives without the immediate pressure of raising additional capital.
ROE Is Misleading for a Growth-Stage Firm
The most commonly misapplied ratio for Rocket Lab is its Price-to-Book (P/B) of 20.81, which is distorted by massive accumulated losses and capital raises, making a metric useful for mature, profitable companies highly misleading for a firm in its current investment phase.
The P/B ratio is inflated because the company's book value is built primarily from equity injections rather than retained earnings, as evidenced by the negative $1.1 billion in retained earnings against $3.5 billion in total equity. This makes the ratio a poor measure of value creation and obscures the underlying economics. A more appropriate lens would be to evaluate the valuation relative to the growth and margin trajectory of the Space Systems segment, or to use a metric like EV/Sales that focuses on revenue generation, which is currently the most relevant indicator of the company's scaling progress.