Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -22.5x · EV/EBITDA N/A · ROE -53.0%. (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 | $1.1B | $1.5B | $1.2B | $3.4B | $2.9B | $901M | $170M | $89M | $70M | — | — |
| Enterprise Value | $1.3B | $1.6B | $1.4B | $3.5B | $2.8B | $786M | $161M | $93M | $71M | — | — |
| P/E Ratio → | -22.53 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | 10.27 | 13.35 | 5.98 | 18.79 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/B Ratio | 19.93 | 25.93 | 9.40 | 15.89 | 15.57 | 6.22 | 7.80 | 10.15 | 6.16 | — | — |
| P/FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | 462.01 | 600.47 | — | — | — | — | — | 216.46 | — | — | — |
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 | — | 14.59 | 6.88 | 19.41 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDA | — | — | 112.39 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | 16.7% | 16.7% | 21.2% | 49.1% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -11.1% | -11.1% | -3.0% | -11.9% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Profit Margin | -45.6% | -45.6% | -33.5% | -21.1% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -53.0% | -53.0% | -40.3% | -19.2% | -57.2% | -32.1% | -8.0% | -56.4% | -122.9% | — | -825.9% |
| ROA | -13.1% | -13.1% | -14.6% | -9.6% | -40.6% | -28.7% | -4.5% | -28.4% | -126.7% | -4.6% | -406.6% |
| ROIC | -3.5% | -3.5% | -1.4% | -6.6% | -72.0% | -88.9% | -7.2% | -23.0% | -136.8% | — | — |
| ROCE | -6.0% | -6.0% | -1.8% | -6.8% | -44.9% | -28.6% | -6.1% | -26.7% | -586.0% | — | -827.6% |
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 | 2.53 | 2.53 | 1.91 | 0.82 | 0.44 | 0.04 | 0.24 | 0.53 | 0.44 | — | — |
| Debt / EBITDA | — | — | 19.89 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 2.42 | 1.42 | 0.52 | -0.08 | -0.80 | -0.39 | 0.51 | 0.08 | — | — |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | — | — | 14.73 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | -0.52 | -0.52 | -0.29 | -0.72 | -369.00 | -68.03 | -2.77 | -6.82 | -11.04 | -7.77 | — |
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 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.85 | 1.17 | 3.06 | 33.39 | 2.03 | 0.09 | 0.84 | 0.02 | 0.73 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.70 | 1.01 | 3.06 | 33.39 | 2.03 | 0.09 | 0.84 | 0.02 | 0.73 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.42 | 0.53 | 2.57 | 33.22 | 1.95 | 0.02 | 0.77 | 0.02 | 0.73 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.37 | 0.44 | 0.37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Inventory Turnover | 4.43 | 4.43 | 7.08 | 4.75 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 23.48 | 45.15 | 59.80 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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% | — | — |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — | — |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $111M | $111M | $108M | $101M | $87M | $72M | $68M | $45M | $669675 | $320990 |
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 SGML stock.
Sigma Lithium Corporation's current P/E ratio is -22.5x. This places it at the 50th percentile of its historical range.
Sigma Lithium Corporation's return on equity (ROE) is -53.0%. The historical average is -63.9%.
Based on historical data, Sigma Lithium Corporation is trading at a P/E of -22.5x. This is at the 50th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Sigma Lithium Corporation has 16.7% gross margin and -11.1% operating margin.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Liquidity crisis amid negative margins
Valuation Reflects Growth, Not Current Earnings
The forward P/E of 22.53 and P/B of 24.35 suggest the market is pricing future expansion potential, as the trailing P/E of -27.53 and negative net margins indicate current earnings power is negligible.
The significant premium between the trailing and forward P/E multiples implies analysts expect a dramatic earnings recovery, likely tied to the successful ramp of Phase 2 and a rebound in lithium prices. However, the current P/B ratio of 24.35 is exceptionally high for a capital-intensive mining company with a negative ROE, indicating the valuation is almost entirely based on the perceived value of the undeveloped resource and future cash flows, not the current asset base. This creates a high-risk profile where any delay in expansion or further price weakness could lead to a severe multiple compression.
Margin Volatility Masks True Cost Structure
Gross margins have swung from -39.9% to 77.9% over the past ten quarters, indicating that the company's profitability is currently dictated by volatile lithium prices rather than a stable, efficient cost structure.
The extreme volatility in gross margin, coupled with persistently negative operating and net margins, suggests the company has not yet achieved the operational scale to cover its fixed overhead and interest expenses. The 60.0% gross margin in 2026Q2 is a positive signal, but the -4.8% net margin in the same period highlights that non-operating costs, particularly interest on the ballooning debt, are consuming all operational profit. This implies that true earning power remains unproven and is highly sensitive to the spodumene-to-hydroxide price spread.
Negative Returns Signal Capital Destruction
The negative ROE of -3.4% and ROIC of 2.2% in 2026Q2, following a period of deeply negative returns, indicate the company is currently destroying shareholder value as it invests heavily in expansion.
The trend shows a company in a deep investment trough, with ROIC only recently turning positive after several quarters of negative returns. This pattern is typical for a mining operation in a major expansion phase, but the current returns are far below any reasonable cost of capital. The key question is whether the invested capital will generate returns above the cost of debt and equity once Phase 2 is fully operational; the current negative ROE suggests it is not yet doing so, and the high leverage amplifies this risk.
Leverage Escalates to Constrained Levels
According to recent SEC filings, Sigma Lithium's debt-to-equity ratio has ballooned to 3.26, with total debt of $267.9M now representing 56% of total assets, indicating a highly leveraged position that appears necessity-driven.
The rapid increase in leverage from a D/E of 1.89 in 2026Q1 to 3.26 in 2026Q2, concurrent with negative net margins, suggests the company is funding its operations and expansion through debt rather than internal cash generation. The interest coverage ratio of 1.02 in 2026Q2 is precariously low, indicating that operating income is barely sufficient to cover interest payments. This level of leverage significantly increases refinancing risk and covenant pressure, especially if lithium prices remain depressed or the Phase 2 ramp-up encounters delays.
Liquidity Position Remains Critically Thin
Based on EDBL's reported figures, the company's cash position of $27.9M in 2026Q2, while an improvement from the prior quarter's $6.2M, still represents only 5.8% of total assets and provides minimal buffer against operational shocks.
The current ratio of 0.34 and quick ratio of 0.24 in 2026Q2 are well below 1.0, indicating a severe working capital deficit and an inability to cover short-term liabilities with liquid assets. This precarious liquidity is exacerbated by the negative net margins, which imply ongoing cash burn. The company's ability to fund its operations and meet debt obligations appears contingent on external financing or a rapid improvement in market conditions, making it highly vulnerable to any disruption.
The Misleading Power of Gross Margin
The single ratio most commonly misapplied to this business model is the gross margin, which can appear artificially high during price spikes but obscures the company's inability to cover its substantial fixed overhead and interest costs.
For a capital-intensive miner like Sigma Lithium, a high gross margin (e.g., 77.9% in 2025Q4) can create a false impression of profitability. It fails to account for the massive fixed costs of the processing plant, corporate overhead, and the interest expense on expansion debt, which together result in negative operating and net margins. Analysts should instead focus on the operating margin and free cash flow margin to assess true economic profitability, as these metrics better reflect the company's ability to generate cash after all necessary operational and financial costs.