Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -120.8x · EV/EBITDA 99.0x · ROE -9.9%. (2016–2025 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 | $4.0B | $2.8B | $4.7B | $5.3B | $4.2B | $5.9B | $5.3B | $2.3B | $1.2B | — | — |
| Enterprise Value | $4.3B | $3.1B | $4.8B | $5.5B | $4.4B | $6.0B | $5.2B | $2.3B | $1.0B | — | — |
| P/E Ratio → | -120.77 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | 4.00 | 2.83 | 5.20 | 6.66 | 6.22 | 10.83 | 11.99 | 6.49 | 4.45 | — | — |
| P/B Ratio | 13.33 | 8.66 | 11.70 | 15.35 | 15.68 | 27.21 | 35.04 | 23.26 | 9.78 | — | — |
| P/FCF | 15.69 | 11.10 | 21.94 | 37.67 | 37.92 | 64.95 | 120.09 | — | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | 14.98 | 10.60 | 21.51 | 35.47 | 32.38 | 60.55 | 82.18 | — | — | — | — |
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 | — | 3.11 | 5.30 | 6.88 | 6.40 | 11.09 | 11.72 | 6.41 | 3.88 | — | — |
| EV / EBITDA | 99.01 | 71.93 | 181.06 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBIT | 3557.83 | 565.86 | 366.09 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / FCF | — | 12.19 | 22.38 | 38.92 | 39.01 | 66.55 | 117.37 | — | — | — | — |
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 | 78.1% | 78.1% | 77.8% | 77.0% | 77.3% | 80.3% | 82.4% | 82.8% | 83.9% | 86.4% | 88.6% |
| Operating Margin | 0.1% | 0.1% | -0.8% | -6.5% | -9.9% | -7.7% | -8.3% | -25.6% | -27.1% | -21.7% | -28.8% |
| Net Profit Margin | -3.6% | -3.6% | -4.0% | -9.8% | -13.5% | -8.6% | -9.7% | -27.9% | -27.5% | -21.9% | -29.9% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -9.9% | -9.9% | -9.7% | -25.4% | -37.9% | -25.5% | -34.2% | -89.7% | -60.4% | — | — |
| ROA | -2.1% | -2.1% | -2.2% | -5.1% | -6.9% | -4.8% | -6.8% | -19.4% | -23.5% | -30.4% | -35.3% |
| ROIC | 0.2% | 0.2% | -1.0% | -8.5% | -13.5% | -16.1% | -54.0% | -364.4% | — | — | — |
| ROCE | 0.1% | 0.1% | -0.7% | -5.8% | -8.4% | -7.7% | -13.3% | -41.5% | -76.3% | — | — |
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 | 1.43 | 1.43 | 1.06 | 1.19 | 1.56 | 1.96 | 0.39 | 0.46 | 0.08 | — | — |
| Debt / EBITDA | 10.79 | 10.79 | 16.03 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 0.85 | 0.23 | 0.51 | 0.45 | 0.67 | -0.80 | -0.29 | -1.27 | — | — |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 6.44 | 6.44 | 3.55 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | 1.09 | 0.44 | 1.25 | 1.09 | 1.60 | -2.73 | — | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.41 | -1.15 | -3.49 | -5.83 | -73.75 | — | — | -543.47 | — |
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 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 1.27 | 1.19 | 1.47 | 1.55 | 1.29 | 1.11 | 1.56 | 0.62 | 0.83 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.95 | 0.95 | 1.27 | 1.19 | 1.47 | 1.55 | 1.29 | 1.11 | 1.56 | 0.62 | 0.83 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.78 | 0.70 | 0.97 | 1.06 | 0.78 | 0.65 | 1.11 | 0.15 | 0.32 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.57 | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.47 | 0.43 | 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.58 | 1.14 | 1.18 |
| Inventory Turnover | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 101.95 | 104.93 | 100.56 | 100.09 | 92.14 | 95.63 | 97.61 | 93.19 | 98.93 | 105.86 |
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 | 6.4% | 9.0% | 4.6% | 2.7% | 2.6% | 1.5% | 0.8% | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 6.2% | 8.8% | 2.1% | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — | — |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 6.2% | 8.8% | 2.1% | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — | — |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $120M | $119M | $115M | $111M | $106M | $101M | $96M | $54M | $79M | $79M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 10 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 TENB stock.
Tenable Holdings, Inc.'s current P/E ratio is -120.8x. This places it at the 50th percentile of its historical range.
Tenable Holdings, Inc.'s current EV/EBITDA is 99.0x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 71.9x.
Tenable Holdings, Inc.'s return on equity (ROE) is -9.9%. The historical average is -36.6%.
Based on historical data, Tenable Holdings, Inc. is trading at a P/E of -120.8x. This is at the 50th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Tenable Holdings, Inc. has 78.1% gross margin and 0.1% operating margin.
Tenable Holdings, Inc.'s Debt/EBITDA ratio is 10.8x, indicating high leverage. A ratio above 4x may signal elevated financial risk.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Revenue growth deceleration and profitability volatility
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Premium Multiple on Turnaround Hopes
Tenable trades at 19.1x forward earnings and 22.3x forward EV/EBITDA, per recent filings, a premium to peers like Qualys and Check Point, implying the market expects sustained margin expansion.
The forward P/E of 19.1x appears reasonable only if the company can maintain its recent operating leverage, but the trailing P/E of -126.1x reflects the volatile earnings base. The EV/EBITDA of 103.1x on trailing EBITDA is optically extreme, yet the forward multiple of 22.3x suggests investors are pricing in a significant EBITDA recovery. Compared to Qualys' 27.4x and Check Point's 14.5x forward EV/EBITDA, Tenable's multiple is not excessive if the turnaround is durable, but it leaves little room for disappointment.
Margin Recovery Still Below Peer Norms
Gross margin held near 78% in 2026Q2, as reported, but operating margin of 4.6% and net margin of 1.4% remain far below Qualys' 29.6% net margin, indicating structural cost disadvantages.
The sequential improvement from negative operating margins in 2025 to positive territory in 2026 is encouraging, but the absolute level remains thin. The 77-78% gross margin is stable yet lags Qualys (82.8%) and Check Point (86.7%), suggesting pricing power or cost structure differences. The recent profitability is heavily reliant on cost controls, as SG&A fell from 63.2% of revenue in 2025Q1 to 51.5% in 2026Q2, but such cuts may not be sustainable without impairing growth.
Returns on Capital Still Subscale
ROIC improved to 2.8% in 2026Q2 from negative levels a year earlier, as per financial statements, but remains far below the cost of capital and peer ROICs like Qualys' 47.5%.
The positive ROIC is a recent development, but at 2.8% it is still below the company's cost of capital, implying value destruction on an economic basis. The improvement is driven by margin recovery rather than asset efficiency, as asset turnover has been flat at 0.15-0.17. The large goodwill balance ($697.9M, 44% of assets) inflates the capital base, making ROIC appear lower than it would be on an adjusted basis, but even adjusted returns are likely subpar.
Working Capital Efficiency Masked by SaaS Model
DSO rose to 63 days in 2026Q2 from 64 days a year earlier, as reported, while DPO fell to 32 days, indicating a slight deterioration in cash conversion efficiency.
The cash conversion cycle is not fully calculable due to missing DIO data, but the DSO trend is stable around 60-85 days, which is typical for enterprise software with annual upfront billing. The decline in DPO from 35 to 32 days suggests Tenable is paying suppliers faster, which could be a sign of improved vendor relationships or a strategic choice. The asset turnover of 0.17 is low, reflecting the asset-light model with minimal PPE, but the high goodwill from acquisitions inflates the asset base, making the ratio appear weaker than the underlying operational efficiency.
Deleveraging Reduces Refinancing Risk
D/E fell to 0.33 in 2026Q2 from 1.69 in 2026Q1, as per SEC filings, with total debt down to $66.1M, but interest coverage of 2.12x remains modest.
The dramatic reduction in debt is a positive development, but the current ratio of 0.79 and quick ratio of 0.79 indicate that current liabilities exceed current assets, which could strain liquidity if cash flows weaken. Interest coverage of 2.12x is adequate but not comfortable, and the D/EBITDA of 4.83x on trailing EBITDA is elevated, though it should improve as EBITDA grows. The deleveraging appears deliberate, but the low cash balance ($125.4M) and thin liquidity cushion warrant monitoring.
Liquidity Cushion Thins as Current Ratio Dips
Current ratio fell to 0.79 in 2026Q2 from 1.27 in 2024Q4, as reported, with cash at $125.4M, suggesting a tightening liquidity position that may limit near-term flexibility.
The sub-1.0 current ratio is a red flag for a company with a history of losses, but the recurring revenue model provides some stability. The quick ratio is identical to the current ratio, indicating no inventory dependence, which is typical for software. However, the reliance on operating cash flow to cover short-term obligations is risky if growth stalls or collections slow. The company's ability to generate strong FCF (32.6% margin in 2026Q1) provides some comfort, but the thin liquidity buffer could be tested under stress.
Lagging Peers on Profitability, Leading on Growth
Tenable's net margin of 1.4% in 2026Q2, as reported, is far below Qualys' 29.6% and Check Point's 38.8%, but its forward P/E of 19.1x is lower than Rapid7's 37.2x.
Compared to peers, Tenable is in a turnaround phase, with profitability metrics lagging the more mature Qualys and Check Point. Its ROE of 1.7% is well below Qualys' 37.2% and Check Point's 36.4%, but it is positive, unlike Varonis and SailPoint. The valuation multiple is not demanding relative to Rapid7, but the market is paying for a recovery that is still in its early stages. The structural differences in business models (e.g., Qualys' higher margins) suggest that Tenable may need to sustain cost discipline for several quarters to close the gap.
Misapplied Metric: EV/EBITDA
EV/EBITDA is commonly misapplied to Tenable because its EBITDA is depressed by heavy stock-based compensation, as per financial statements, making the multiple appear artificially high.
The trailing EV/EBITDA of 103.1x is misleading because EBITDA is suppressed by non-cash charges like stock-based compensation, which totaled $43.9M in 2026Q1 alone. A more appropriate metric is EV/EBIT or EV/operating cash flow, which better captures the cash-generating ability of the business. On a forward basis, EV/EBITDA of 22.3x is more reasonable, but investors should adjust for SBC to avoid overstating the earnings power. The company's high FCF margin (32.6% in 2026Q1) suggests that cash-based multiples are more relevant than EBITDA-based ones.