Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -31.6x · EV/EBITDA N/A · ROE -90.5%. (2012–2025 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 | $6.7B | $7.0B | $3.4B | $2.7B | $1.5B | $495M | $1.3B | $836M | $833M | $777M | — |
| Enterprise Value | $6.7B | $6.9B | $3.3B | $2.6B | $1.4B | $438M | $1.2B | $778M | $784M | $743M | — |
| P/E Ratio → | -31.59 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | 35.51 | 36.66 | 26.24 | 34.24 | 64.21 | 156.95 | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/B Ratio | 23.64 | 25.76 | 20.75 | 15.62 | 5.74 | 1.74 | 7.88 | 2.98 | 3.38 | 5.36 | — |
| 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 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EV / Revenue | — | 36.39 | 25.59 | 33.48 | 58.89 | 138.97 | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 89.7% | 89.7% | 89.7% | 88.0% | 91.0% | 81.0% | — | — | — | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -101.2% | -101.2% | -204.0% | -238.1% | -757.9% | -5391.9% | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Profit Margin | -103.6% | -103.6% | -200.3% | -238.5% | -766.2% | -2207.1% | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -90.5% | -90.5% | -155.9% | -85.1% | -66.1% | -30.9% | -58.4% | -51.1% | -37.9% | -44.3% | -131.7% |
| ROA | -45.1% | -45.1% | -71.9% | -51.6% | -50.9% | -27.0% | -52.8% | -47.3% | -36.0% | -41.1% | -104.3% |
| ROIC | -96.3% | -96.3% | -209.3% | -110.9% | -73.4% | -86.1% | -70.4% | -52.3% | -38.3% | -43.7% | — |
| ROCE | -59.0% | -59.0% | -95.8% | -59.4% | -57.0% | -74.7% | -60.3% | -55.0% | -40.0% | -42.5% | -130.8% |
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 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | — | — | — |
| Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | -0.19 | -0.52 | -0.35 | -0.48 | -0.20 | -0.59 | -0.21 | -0.20 | -0.24 | -0.90 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | -8.52 | -8.52 | -11.63 | -12.25 | -33.82 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Net cash position: cash ($54M) exceeds total debt ($4M)
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 | 4.41 | 4.41 | 3.24 | 5.58 | 8.90 | 7.10 | 10.10 | 12.38 | 19.05 | 22.42 | 2.36 |
| Quick Ratio | 4.16 | 4.16 | 3.08 | 5.43 | 8.83 | 7.10 | 10.10 | 12.38 | 19.05 | 22.42 | 2.36 |
| Cash Ratio | 3.67 | 3.67 | 2.78 | 5.00 | 8.37 | 6.79 | 9.60 | 11.98 | 18.56 | 22.04 | 2.23 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.40 | 0.33 | 0.23 | 0.06 | 0.01 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Inventory Turnover | 0.76 | 0.76 | 0.71 | 1.08 | 0.73 | 5.40 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 50.17 | 51.93 | 70.08 | 96.11 | 118.62 | — | — | — | — | — |
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 | — | — | 0.1% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Payout Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| FCF Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $65M | $61M | $58M | $52M | $50M | $44M | $36M | $31M | $27M | $17M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 14 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 RYTM stock.
Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s current P/E ratio is -31.6x. This places it at the 50th percentile of its historical range.
Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s return on equity (ROE) is -90.5%. The historical average is -74.7%.
Based on historical data, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is trading at a P/E of -31.6x. This is at the 50th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has 89.7% gross margin and -101.2% operating margin.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Cash runway and dilution risk
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Premium Pricing for Niche Dominance
RYTM trades at 41.9x trailing sales and 27.9x book value, a premium reflecting its MC4R niche, yet negative earnings and cash burn warrant caution, per reported multiples.
The P/S multiple of 41.9x is elevated relative to rare disease peers like Ultragenyx (P/S ~2.6x based on market cap and revenue) and even profitable Halozyme (P/S ~5.5x), implying the market is pricing in substantial future growth from hypothalamic obesity and other indications. However, with a P/E of -37.3x and no forward estimates, the valuation is entirely dependent on the successful expansion of setmelanotide's label. Investors should monitor whether revenue growth of 45.8% YoY can sustain this multiple, as any slowdown in BBS or HO uptake could trigger a de-rating.
Gross Margin Strength Masks Operating Drag
Gross margin remains high at 87.5% in Q2 2026, but operating margin of -68.1% and net margin of -69.2% reflect heavy SG&A and R&D spending, per quarterly filings.
The 87.5% gross margin is typical for orphan drugs and underscores the pricing power of IMCIVREE, but the operating margin of -68.1% indicates that the company is spending more than twice its gross profit on commercialization and R&D. The sequential improvement from -87.1% in Q1 2026 suggests some operating leverage is emerging, yet the absolute level remains unsustainable without significant revenue scaling. The net margin of -69.2% is also distorted by stock-based compensation, which reached $49.2M in Q2 2026, representing 69% of revenue, so investors should focus on cash-based metrics to gauge true profitability.
Negative Returns Reflect Pre-Profit Stage
ROIC of -21.8% in Q2 2026, though improved from -107.4% a year earlier, remains deeply negative, indicating the company is still destroying capital as it scales, per reported figures.
The improvement in ROIC from -107.4% in Q2 2025 to -21.8% in Q2 2026 is driven by a larger capital base and narrowing operating losses, but the metric remains firmly negative, as expected for a commercial-stage biotech. The negative ROE of -21.7% and ROA of -11.2% similarly reflect the lack of profitability, and the trend suggests that returns will only turn positive once revenue reaches a scale that covers fixed costs. The company's asset-light model, with minimal PPE, means that returns are driven by margin expansion rather than asset efficiency, so investors should monitor the trajectory of operating margins as the key driver of future ROIC.
Working Capital Drag from Inventory Buildup
Cash conversion cycle lengthened to 204 days in Q2 2026 from 126 days a year earlier, driven by a surge in days inventory outstanding to 301, per quarterly data.
The CCC of 204 days is notably high, and the increase from 126 days in Q2 2025 is primarily due to DIO jumping from 313 to 301 days, while DSO remained stable at 48 days. This suggests the company is building inventory ahead of anticipated demand, possibly for the HO launch, but it also ties up cash in a period of negative cash flow. The DPO of 145 days indicates some supplier leverage, but the overall working capital cycle is a drag on liquidity, and investors should watch whether inventory levels normalize as revenue grows.
Minimal Debt Masks Financing Needs
Debt-to-equity is just 0.02, but negative interest coverage of -9.76x and a cash balance of $54.3M against a $190M TTM loss signal imminent external financing, per financial statements.
RYTM's balance sheet shows negligible debt, with total debt of $3.7M, which provides flexibility, but the negative interest coverage of -9.76x indicates that operating losses far exceed any interest expense, making debt service irrelevant at this stage. The real leverage risk is equity dilution: with cash of $54.3M and a quarterly burn of roughly $50M, the company has less than one quarter of runway, suggesting a capital raise is likely. The low D/E ratio is misleading because it does not capture the off-balance-sheet financing needs, and investors should monitor the terms of any future equity offering.
Cash Buffer Shrinks Against Burn
Current ratio of 3.45 and quick ratio of 3.20 appear healthy, but cash of $54.3M covers less than one quarter of TTM operating burn, per reported cash flow data.
The current ratio of 3.45 and quick ratio of 3.20 suggest ample short-term liquidity, but these ratios are inflated by inventory and receivables, which may not be easily convertible to cash in a stress scenario. The cash balance of $54.3M is critically low relative to the TTM operating cash burn of $190M, implying a cash runway of under three months. This disconnect between the liquidity ratios and the cash runway highlights the importance of monitoring cash burn and the potential need for a capital raise, which could be dilutive to existing shareholders.
Premium vs. Rare Disease Peers
RYTM's P/S of 41.9x far exceeds Ultragenyx's ~2.6x and Amicus's ~4.5x, reflecting a premium for its MC4R mechanism, but its negative margins lag profitable peers, per peer data.
Compared to rare disease peers like Ultragenyx (RARE) and Amicus (FOLD), RYTM trades at a significant premium on a price-to-sales basis, which may be justified by its faster revenue growth (45.8% YoY) and the potential of the HO indication. However, its operating margin of -68.1% is worse than Amicus's -4.3% and far behind Halozyme's 22.7% net margin, indicating that RYTM is earlier in its commercialization journey. The gap in profitability is structural, given the heavy investment in sales force and R&D, but investors should monitor whether the premium narrows as the company approaches breakeven.
Misapplied P/S Multiple
The P/S ratio is commonly misapplied to RYTM because it ignores the negative gross-to-net adjustments and the high fixed-cost structure, making revenue growth appear more valuable than it is, per reported figures.
For a company with a gross margin of 87.5% but an operating margin of -68.1%, the P/S multiple of 41.9x overstates the value of each dollar of revenue, as a significant portion is consumed by SG&A and R&D. A more appropriate metric would be EV/Sales adjusted for the cash burn, or a multiple on gross profit, which better reflects the underlying economics of the orphan drug model. Additionally, the P/S ratio does not account for the dilutive impact of stock-based compensation, which is a real cost to shareholders. Investors should use a forward EV/Sales or a price-to-gross-profit multiple to better assess RYTM's valuation relative to its peers.