Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 38.5x · EV/EBITDA 21.2x · ROE 10.4%. (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 | $257.4B | $248.8B | $155.5B | $120.8B | $150.0B | $129.8B | $97.1B | $76.3B | $50.9B | $60.1B | $53.4B |
| Enterprise Value | $289.5B | $280.8B | $192.8B | $159.4B | $177.2B | $155.1B | $121.6B | $116.3B | $90.3B | $78.6B | $70.2B |
| P/E Ratio → | 38.51 | 36.98 | 32.60 | 37.73 | 28.83 | 33.62 | — | 13.78 | 9.66 | 13.20 | 10.57 |
| P/S Ratio | 2.91 | 2.81 | 1.93 | 1.75 | 2.24 | 2.02 | 1.72 | 1.68 | 1.47 | 1.00 | 0.93 |
| P/B Ratio | 3.86 | 3.71 | 2.51 | 1.97 | 2.02 | 1.74 | 1.31 | 1.72 | 1.25 | 1.91 | 1.81 |
| P/FCF | 32.42 | 31.33 | 34.29 | 25.60 | 34.14 | 27.34 | 59.24 | 12.16 | 12.65 | 18.57 | 29.66 |
| P/OCF | 24.36 | 23.54 | 21.72 | 15.32 | 20.92 | 18.36 | 26.93 | 8.59 | 8.05 | 10.68 | 13.77 |
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 | — | 3.17 | 2.39 | 2.31 | 2.64 | 2.41 | 2.15 | 2.56 | 2.60 | 1.31 | 1.23 |
| EV / EBITDA | 21.16 | 20.53 | 17.68 | 20.51 | 18.44 | 16.00 | 53.65 | 15.25 | 18.91 | 7.65 | 6.89 |
| EV / EBIT | 31.13 | 26.57 | 23.62 | 29.04 | 23.90 | 24.09 | — | 19.83 | 24.49 | 8.95 | 8.46 |
| EV / FCF | — | 35.37 | 42.52 | 33.80 | 40.35 | 32.67 | 74.21 | 18.53 | 22.45 | 24.29 | 38.95 |
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 | 20.1% | 20.1% | 19.1% | 17.5% | 20.4% | 19.4% | 15.1% | 23.7% | 20.9% | 26.1% | 27.6% |
| Operating Margin | 10.5% | 10.5% | 8.1% | 5.2% | 8.2% | 8.0% | -3.3% | 10.8% | 8.3% | 13.6% | 14.4% |
| Net Profit Margin | 7.6% | 7.6% | 5.9% | 4.6% | 7.7% | 6.0% | -6.2% | 12.2% | 15.2% | 7.6% | 8.8% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 10.4% | 10.4% | 7.7% | 4.7% | 7.0% | 5.2% | -6.0% | 13.0% | 14.6% | 14.9% | 17.3% |
| ROA | 4.0% | 4.0% | 2.9% | 2.0% | 3.2% | 2.4% | -2.3% | 4.0% | 4.6% | 4.9% | 5.7% |
| ROIC | 7.0% | 7.0% | 4.9% | 2.6% | 4.1% | 3.9% | -1.6% | 4.5% | 3.3% | 12.7% | 13.9% |
| ROCE | 8.3% | 8.3% | 5.8% | 3.0% | 4.5% | 4.1% | -1.7% | 5.0% | 3.3% | 11.6% | 12.4% |
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 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.69 | 0.74 | 0.45 | 0.44 | 0.45 | 1.01 | 1.12 | 0.87 | 0.81 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 2.89 | 2.89 | 3.93 | 5.82 | 3.49 | 3.42 | 14.71 | 5.89 | 9.54 | 2.67 | 2.35 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 0.48 | 0.60 | 0.63 | 0.37 | 0.34 | 0.33 | 0.90 | 0.97 | 0.59 | 0.57 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 2.34 | 2.34 | 3.42 | 4.97 | 2.84 | 2.61 | 10.82 | 5.24 | 8.25 | 1.80 | 1.64 |
| Debt / FCF | — | 4.04 | 8.23 | 8.19 | 6.21 | 5.33 | 14.97 | 6.37 | 9.80 | 5.72 | 9.30 |
| Interest Coverage | 5.76 | 5.76 | 4.14 | 3.32 | 5.71 | 4.84 | -0.67 | 3.43 | 3.12 | 8.63 | 7.14 |
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 | 1.03 | 1.03 | 0.99 | 1.04 | 1.09 | 1.19 | 1.21 | 1.32 | 1.13 | 1.35 | 1.30 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.74 | 0.78 | 0.81 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 1.13 | 0.81 | 0.94 | 0.91 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.22 | 0.25 | 0.11 | 0.20 | 0.37 | 0.33 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.40 | 0.35 | 0.32 | 0.26 | 0.62 | 0.64 |
| Inventory Turnover | 5.30 | 5.30 | 5.12 | 4.83 | 5.03 | 5.65 | 5.11 | 3.82 | 2.72 | 4.47 | 4.76 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 130.97 | 115.49 | 121.69 | 112.33 | 119.17 | 123.75 | 106.28 | 186.78 | 76.83 | 73.21 |
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 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | 1.4% | 1.4% | 2.1% | 2.7% | 2.1% | 2.3% | 2.8% | 3.2% | 4.3% | 3.5% | 3.9% |
| Payout Ratio | 53.1% | 53.1% | 67.4% | 101.4% | 60.2% | 76.5% | — | 44.1% | 41.2% | 45.6% | 40.9% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | 2.6% | 2.7% | 3.1% | 2.7% | 3.5% | 3.0% | — | 7.3% | 10.4% | 7.6% | 9.5% |
| FCF Yield | 3.1% | 3.2% | 2.9% | 3.9% | 2.9% | 3.7% | 1.7% | 8.2% | 7.9% | 5.4% | 3.4% |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3% | 10.7% | 1.9% | 1.8% | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.6% | 2.4% | 4.2% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 1.4% | 1.5% | 2.4% | 13.3% | 4.0% | 4.1% | 2.9% | 3.4% | 4.9% | 5.9% | 8.1% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $1.4B | $1.3B | $1.4B | $1.5B | $1.5B | $1.4B | $864M | $810M | $799M | $826M |
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.
Bull/bear thesis, analyst target revisions, and earnings execution.
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 RTX stock.
RTX Corporation's current P/E ratio is 38.5x. The historical average is 15.4x. This places it at the 100th percentile of its historical range.
RTX Corporation's current EV/EBITDA is 21.2x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 10.7x.
RTX Corporation's return on equity (ROE) is 10.4%. The historical average is 17.2%.
Based on historical data, RTX Corporation is trading at a P/E of 38.5x. This is at the 100th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
RTX Corporation's current dividend yield is 1.38% with a payout ratio of 53.1%.
RTX Corporation has 20.1% gross margin and 10.5% operating margin. Operating margin between 10-20% is typical for established companies.
RTX Corporation's Debt/EBITDA ratio is 2.9x, indicating moderate leverage. A ratio between 2-4x is manageable but warrants monitoring.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
GTF powder metal charges
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Margin Recovery Masks GTF Drag
Gross margin expanded to 20.8% in Q2 2026 from 18.2% in Q2 2024, while operating margin recovered to 11.4% from 2.7%, as reported in quarterly filings, indicating a strong cyclical rebound.
The margin trajectory reflects a clear recovery from the Q2 2024 trough, when GTF charges compressed operating margin to 2.7%. The 2026 figures suggest underlying operational leverage is emerging, with SG&A scaling and R&D intensity declining. However, the reported net margin of 8.7% likely understates normalized earning power, as one-time GTF remediation costs and amortization of merger intangibles continue to weigh on reported profitability. Investors should monitor whether margin expansion can persist as GTF charges subside and OE mix dilution remains a structural headwind.
Capital Returns Rebound from Cyclical Low
ROIC improved to 2.1% in Q2 2026 from 0.4% in Q2 2024, while ROE rose to 3.1% from 0.2%, based on reported figures, signaling a recovery from the GTF-driven trough.
The sharp improvement in ROIC and ROE reflects both margin recovery and a more efficient capital base, as total assets grew modestly while earnings rebounded. However, these returns remain low in absolute terms and trail peers like LMT (ROIC 23.9%) and GD (12.5%), partly due to the capital-intensive nature of engine programs and the large intangible base from the UTC-Raytheon merger. The trend suggests the company is compounding from a depressed base, but sustained double-digit returns would require continued margin expansion and disciplined capital allocation. The recent pause in buybacks and focus on debt reduction may support returns over time, but the pace of improvement warrants close monitoring.
Working Capital Drag Persists on DSO
Cash conversion cycle improved to 107 days in Q2 2026 from 120 days in Q2 2024, but DSO remains elevated at 118 days, as per financial statements, indicating ongoing working capital intensity.
The modest improvement in CCC is driven by a slight reduction in DSO and DIO, while DPO has increased, suggesting better supplier leverage. However, DSO of 118 days is high, reflecting the long-cycle nature of defense contracts and LTSA billing terms, which ties up cash. The working capital swings observed in the cash flow statement—ranging from -$2.3B to +$2.0B—highlight the volatility inherent in this model. While the trend is positive, the absolute level of CCC suggests that working capital efficiency remains a structural challenge, and any further improvement would likely come from tighter receivables management or more favorable payment terms.
Deleveraging Path Improves Coverage
Debt-to-equity fell to 0.57 in Q2 2026 from 0.72 in Q2 2024, while interest coverage rose to 7.38 from 1.88, as reported in SEC filings, indicating a more comfortable debt service position.
The reduction in leverage is a clear positive, with total debt declining from $44.3B to $38.9B over the period. Interest coverage has more than tripled from the Q2 2024 trough, reflecting both lower debt and higher operating income. However, D/EBITDA remains elevated at 9.99, though it has improved from 27.21 in Q2 2024, indicating that EBITDA growth is outpacing debt reduction. The current leverage profile appears manageable, but the company's exposure to long-cycle contracts and potential GTF-related liabilities suggests that refinancing risk is low but not negligible. Investors should monitor whether the deleveraging trend continues, especially if cash flow generation falters.
Liquidity Tight but Improving
Current ratio improved to 1.01 in Q2 2026 from 0.99 in Q2 2024, with cash rising to $8.3B, as per the latest balance sheet, providing a modest buffer against short-term obligations.
The current ratio remains barely above 1.0, indicating that current assets only just cover current liabilities, which is typical for large industrials but leaves little room for error. The quick ratio of 0.78 suggests that inventory is a significant component of current assets, and in a stress scenario, inventory liquidation may be difficult. However, the company's access to capital markets and strong backlog provide additional liquidity beyond the balance sheet. The improvement in cash position and the positive operating cash flow trend support near-term liquidity, but the tight current ratio warrants monitoring, especially given the potential for GTF-related cash outflows.
Misapplied Metric: EV/EBITDA
EV/EBITDA of 23.03 appears rich, but for RTX, this metric is distorted by large intangible amortization and GTF charges, as reported in financial statements, making adjusted earnings a better gauge.
EV/EBITDA is commonly used to compare aerospace and defense companies, but for RTX, it is misleading because EBITDA does not capture the significant depreciation and amortization from the UTC-Raytheon merger, nor does it adjust for the non-recurring GTF charges. The reported EV/EBITDA of 23.03 is higher than peers like LMT (17.70) and NOC (16.59), but this may overstate the valuation gap. A more appropriate metric would be EV/EBIT or EV/EBITA, which includes the impact of amortization and provides a clearer picture of operating performance. Additionally, investors should consider normalized earnings that exclude one-time charges to assess the true earning power of the business.