Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -10.3x · EV/EBITDA 8.3x · ROE -13.9%. (2013–2025 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 | $1.6B | $1.2B | $1.6B | $3.5B | $3.8B | $14.4B | $18.1B | $6.0B | $3.3B | $1.9B | $698M |
| Enterprise Value | $1.8B | $1.5B | $1.8B | $4.0B | $4.5B | $14.8B | $18.8B | $6.0B | $3.3B | $2.1B | $693M |
| P/E Ratio → | -10.30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | 0.64 | 0.49 | 0.60 | 1.36 | 1.59 | 7.09 | 16.54 | 10.87 | 7.81 | 8.28 | 5.67 |
| P/B Ratio | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.04 | 1.52 | 1.65 | 0.90 | 1.14 | 5.93 | 3.22 | 3.46 | 3.03 |
| P/FCF | 6.80 | 4.32 | 5.48 | 18.31 | 22.10 | 77.70 | — | 317.09 | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | 5.38 | 4.19 | 5.28 | 10.13 | 20.17 | 74.28 | — | 201.37 | — | — | — |
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 | — | 0.59 | 0.71 | 1.54 | 1.86 | 7.28 | 17.22 | 10.79 | 7.79 | 8.99 | 5.63 |
| EV / EBITDA | 8.30 | 14.90 | — | 40.09 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBIT | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / FCF | — | 5.23 | 6.49 | 20.73 | 25.97 | 79.79 | — | 314.77 | — | — | — |
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 | 69.5% | 69.5% | 70.8% | 70.8% | 69.1% | 68.0% | 64.3% | 66.7% | 69.2% | 73.6% | 74.0% |
| Operating Margin | -10.4% | -10.4% | -39.7% | -9.6% | -567.3% | -13.1% | -46.3% | -14.5% | -17.0% | -32.3% | -50.9% |
| Net Profit Margin | -7.9% | -7.9% | -39.0% | -8.5% | -567.5% | -21.1% | -44.3% | -17.9% | -23.2% | -45.8% | -60.3% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -13.9% | -13.9% | -52.5% | -9.5% | -148.8% | -2.7% | -5.7% | -9.8% | -12.4% | -27.0% | -36.3% |
| ROA | -6.1% | -6.1% | -25.3% | -4.8% | -121.8% | -2.4% | -5.0% | -6.3% | -8.3% | -18.9% | -27.8% |
| ROIC | -11.5% | -11.5% | -33.5% | -6.5% | -105.5% | -1.2% | -4.3% | -6.1% | -6.2% | -11.9% | -25.0% |
| ROCE | -10.0% | -10.0% | -31.2% | -6.0% | -125.8% | -1.5% | -5.3% | -5.4% | -6.3% | -14.1% | -25.4% |
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 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 1.06 | 0.68 | 0.69 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.46 | 0.41 | 0.37 | 0.19 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 10.38 | 10.38 | — | 15.90 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.20 | 0.29 | 0.02 | 0.05 | -0.04 | -0.01 | 0.29 | -0.02 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 2.59 | 2.59 | — | 4.68 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | 0.91 | 1.01 | 2.42 | 3.87 | 2.08 | — | -2.31 | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | -10.95 | -10.95 | -8.77 | -9.45 | -9.91 | -2.95 | -6.98 | -2.51 | -2.53 | -3.56 | -20.30 |
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 | 2.69 | 2.69 | 1.77 | 3.54 | 3.22 | 3.70 | 3.19 | 6.52 | 8.53 | 3.87 | 3.93 |
| Quick Ratio | 2.59 | 2.59 | 1.73 | 3.47 | 3.07 | 3.48 | 3.02 | 6.52 | 8.53 | 3.87 | 3.93 |
| Cash Ratio | 1.93 | 1.93 | 1.38 | 2.67 | 2.30 | 2.71 | 2.36 | 5.73 | 7.66 | 3.03 | 3.12 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.82 | 0.73 | 0.59 | 0.51 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.35 | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.41 |
| Inventory Turnover | 20.20 | 20.20 | 19.70 | 25.75 | 13.20 | 8.90 | 6.92 | — | — | — | — |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 29.09 | 31.81 | 32.27 | 35.74 | 34.14 | 56.48 | 37.57 | 38.05 | 42.39 | 40.92 |
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 | 14.7% | 23.1% | 18.2% | 5.5% | 4.5% | 1.3% | — | 0.3% | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 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% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $176M | $171M | $165M | $161M | $157M | $91M | $72M | $66M | $55M | $42M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 13 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 TDOC stock.
Teladoc Health, Inc.'s current P/E ratio is -10.3x. This places it at the 50th percentile of its historical range.
Teladoc Health, Inc.'s current EV/EBITDA is 8.3x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 27.5x.
Teladoc Health, Inc.'s return on equity (ROE) is -13.9%. The historical average is -34.4%.
Based on historical data, Teladoc Health, Inc. is trading at a P/E of -10.3x. This is at the 50th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Teladoc Health, Inc. has 69.5% gross margin and -10.4% operating margin.
Teladoc Health, Inc.'s Debt/EBITDA ratio is 10.4x, indicating high leverage. A ratio above 4x may signal elevated financial risk.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Current ratio compression and persistent operating losses
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Negative Earnings Force Reliance on Sales Multiples
Based on the supplied data, TDOC trades at a P/S of 0.63 and P/FCF of 5.55 while its trailing P/E is negative at -7.69, so earnings-based valuation is not meaningful and pricing rests on cash generation and revenue.
With operating margins negative in every quarter shown, the trailing P/E of -7.69 carries no informative signal, and the 18.39 EV/EBITDA is inflated by a small positive EBITDA base. The forward EV/EBITDA of 11.33 implies the market expects meaningful EBITDA recovery, which warrants scrutiny given stagnant revenue. Peer context shows DOCS at 33.17 P/E and 25.60 EV/EBITDA, so TDOC's discount reflects its growth and profitability gap rather than a clear mispricing.
Gross Margin Strength Masked by Operating Losses
Gross margin has held near 68.6% to 72% across most quarters, yet operating margin remained negative at -4.6% in 2026Q3 and reached -19.2% in 2025Q1, indicating that operating expenses consume the gross profit contribution.
The gross margin stability suggests pricing and service delivery economics are intact at the contribution level, but SG&A roughly equal to half of revenue prevents conversion to operating profit. Net margin of -4.5% in the latest quarter is narrower than prior periods, which may suggest cost discipline is improving, though a single-quarter improvement warrants further investigation before drawing a trend conclusion. Relative to DOCS at 30.4% net margin, TDOC's gap is structural in cost base rather than gross economics.
Debt Reduction Offset by Thin Coverage
Debt-to-equity fell from 1.11 in 2025Q1 to 0.79 in 2026Q3, but interest coverage remains negative at -4.33, meaning operating earnings do not cover interest obligations.
The deleveraging from roughly 1.11 to 0.79 D/E is a material structural improvement, yet the negative interest coverage ratio indicates debt service depends on balance sheet cash rather than operating earnings. Debt-to-EBITDA of 16.44 in the latest quarter is elevated and suggests limited cushion if cash generation weakens. Investors should monitor whether further debt reduction continues, as the current profile appears sensitive to any deterioration in free cash flow.
Current Ratio Compression Warrants Monitoring
The current ratio fell from 2.80 in 2026Q1 to 0.87 in 2026Q3, and the quick ratio followed to 0.84, indicating current liabilities have risen faster than current assets over the latest two quarters.
Despite cash near $850M, the sharp drop in current ratio suggests a shift in short-term obligations or a decline in receivables and other current assets, though the supplied data does not isolate the cause. Because quick and current ratios converge closely, inventory is not a material driver, so liquidity depends on cash and receivables. A ratio below 1.0 under stress would require the company to rely on its cash balance, and investors should monitor whether this compression persists.
Cash Flow Yield Versus Accounting Losses
The P/FCF of 5.55 implies a cash yield that looks attractive relative to the negative P/E, yet FCF margins swung between -2.5% and 14.3% and cumulative accounting losses remain deeply negative.
The low P/FCF may mislead if free cash flow is episodic rather than recurring, as the quarterly swings suggest working capital timing and lumpy capex are driving reported results. The most commonly misapplied metric here is EV/EBITDA, because stock-based compensation and restructuring charges may flatter EBITDA relative to economic earnings. An analyst should instead use free cash flow after stock-based compensation and a normalized multi-year average to judge the sustainability of the cash yield.