Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -4.0x · EV/EBITDA N/A · ROE -109.9%. (2015–2025 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 | $790M | $494M | $163M | $122M | $46M | $187M | $394M | $179M | $892M | — | — |
| Enterprise Value | $751M | $455M | $107M | $74M | $-81041961 | $70M | $244M | $110M | $806M | — | — |
| P/E Ratio → | -4.03 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | — | — | — | — | 5.66 | 13.72 | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/B Ratio | 3.90 | 2.74 | 1.19 | 0.97 | 0.22 | 0.90 | 2.98 | 2.24 | 7.12 | — | — |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | -10.01 | 5.12 | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | 100.0% | 100.0% | — | — | — | — | — |
| Operating Margin | — | — | — | — | -1315.2% | -530.5% | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Profit Margin | — | — | — | — | -1062.3% | -530.0% | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -109.9% | -109.9% | -94.6% | -56.8% | -41.0% | -42.4% | -83.2% | -114.2% | -226.9% | — | — |
| ROA | -82.8% | -82.8% | -70.5% | -45.2% | -34.9% | -35.8% | -64.3% | -96.5% | -69.3% | -89.2% | -44.7% |
| ROIC | -120.8% | -120.8% | -121.7% | -95.7% | -90.7% | -147.2% | — | -351.5% | — | — | — |
| ROCE | -100.3% | -100.3% | -84.0% | -53.7% | -47.7% | -40.7% | -74.6% | -112.4% | -78.8% | -111.2% | -67.7% |
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 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.01 | — | — |
| Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | -0.22 | -0.41 | -0.38 | -0.60 | -0.56 | -1.13 | -0.86 | -0.68 | — | — |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | — | — | -365.76 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Net cash position: cash ($60M) exceeds total debt ($21M)
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 | 6.14 | 6.14 | 5.20 | 8.94 | 9.76 | 9.43 | 6.49 | 4.72 | 10.31 | 6.27 | 5.82 |
| Quick Ratio | 6.14 | 6.14 | 5.20 | 8.94 | 9.76 | 9.43 | 6.49 | 4.72 | 10.31 | 6.27 | 5.82 |
| Cash Ratio | 5.61 | 5.61 | 4.92 | 8.52 | 9.50 | 8.80 | 6.32 | 4.57 | 9.81 | 6.13 | 5.48 |
| Asset Turnover | — | — | — | — | 0.03 | 0.06 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Inventory Turnover | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | — | — | — | — | 2.95 | — | — | — | — | — |
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% | 3.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — | — |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — | — |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $88M | $41M | $20M | $9M | $7M | $3M | $3M | $2M | $2M | $1M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 11 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 SLDB stock.
Solid Biosciences Inc.'s current P/E ratio is -4.0x. This places it at the 50th percentile of its historical range.
Solid Biosciences Inc.'s return on equity (ROE) is -109.9%. The historical average is -96.1%.
Based on historical data, Solid Biosciences Inc. is trading at a P/E of -4.0x. This is at the 50th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Cash runway and clinical execution
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Liquidity Buffer Shrinks Rapidly
Current ratio remains high at 13.82 in 2026Q2, but cash dropped to $159.4M from $297.7M in 2026Q1, as per financial statements, indicating a short runway.
The current ratio, while nominally strong, is misleading because it is driven by cash and marketable securities that are being consumed at an accelerating rate. With quarterly operating losses averaging around $50M, the $159.4M cash position suggests less than four quarters of runway before additional financing is needed. The high quick ratio (identical to current ratio) indicates no inventory dependence, but the rapid depletion of liquid assets warrants close monitoring of the company's ability to fund operations without dilutive capital raises.
Minimal Debt Masks Financing Needs
Debt-to-equity is only 0.05 as of 2026Q2, but negative interest coverage and a $50M quarterly burn, as reported in financial statements, suggest debt is not the primary funding source.
The company's low leverage is a positive, but it also reflects a lack of access to debt markets typical for pre-revenue biotechs. Interest coverage is deeply negative (e.g., -657 in 2025Q2), indicating that operating losses far exceed any interest expense, which is minimal. The real risk is not debt service but the need for equity financing; the $20.2M total debt is manageable, but the company's reliance on equity and partnerships to fund a $50M quarterly burn suggests that leverage could increase if financing becomes constrained.
Returns on Capital Deeply Negative
ROIC worsened to -25.9% in 2026Q2 from -20.4% in 2024Q1, as per financial statements, reflecting escalating R&D spending with no revenue to offset it.
The negative ROIC is expected for a clinical-stage biotech, but the trend is concerning: the magnitude of capital destruction is increasing as the company invests heavily in SGT-003. The improvement from -36.1% in 2026Q1 to -25.9% in 2026Q2 is likely due to a larger capital base from recent financing, not operational improvement. ROE is similarly negative at -14.6% in 2026Q2, and the persistent erosion of retained earnings (to -$1.1B) indicates that the company is not generating any return on shareholder capital. Investors should monitor whether the SGT-003 program can eventually produce positive returns, but current trends suggest continued value destruction.
Working Capital Efficiency Obscured
Asset turnover is not reported, but DPO spiked to 1001 days in 2026Q1, as per financial statements, suggesting significant timing distortions in payables.
The efficiency metrics are largely unavailable or distorted due to the pre-revenue nature of the business. The extremely high DPO (1001 days in 2026Q1) is not a sign of supplier leverage but rather reflects the accounting treatment of collaboration prepayments and manufacturing commitments. The cash conversion cycle is not meaningful without revenue, and the company's working capital swings (between -$13.2M and +$7.2M) indicate that cash burn is uneven. Analysts should focus on cash burn per quarter rather than traditional efficiency ratios, as the latter are not applicable to a company with no commercial operations.
Valuation Discount to Sarepta
SLDB trades at a P/B of 4.30 versus Sarepta's 1.67, as per peer data, but its negative ROE and cash burn suggest the market is pricing a high-risk option on SGT-003.
Compared to its primary peer Sarepta, SLDB's higher P/B reflects a smaller asset base and the market's willingness to pay for the potential of its next-generation capsid. However, SLDB's ROE (-14.6%) is worse than Sarepta's (-10.0%), and its cash position is far smaller relative to its burn rate. The valuation gap is justified by Sarepta's commercial-stage status and approved product, while SLDB remains pre-revenue with significant clinical risk. The market appears to be pricing SLDB as a binary option on SGT-003 data, with limited downside protection given the short cash runway.
Misapplied P/B Ratio
The P/B ratio of 4.30 is often misapplied to pre-revenue biotechs, as book value is dominated by cash and intangible assets, obscuring the true value of the pipeline.
For a company like SLDB, P/B is not a meaningful valuation metric because book value is largely composed of cash and in-process R&D, which may not reflect the potential value of the SGT-003 program. The market's focus should be on the risk-adjusted net present value of the pipeline, which is better captured by metrics like EV/Invested Capital or a probability-adjusted DCF. The negative ROE and ROIC are expected in this phase, but they do not indicate a poor investment if the clinical data can justify the capital deployed. Investors should use a scenario-based approach that weighs the probability of clinical success and the potential market opportunity, rather than relying on traditional valuation multiples.