Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -98.5x · EV/EBITDA 13.7x · ROE -4.7%. (1996–2025 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 | $2.0B | $2.0B | $573M | $407M | $421M | $589M | $331M | $117M | $108M | $541M | $189M |
| Enterprise Value | $2.4B | $2.5B | $1.2B | $949M | $886M | $886M | $549M | $437M | $418M | $790M | $489M |
| P/E Ratio → | -98.52 | — | — | 5.00 | — | 15.77 | — | — | — | 15.53 | — |
| P/S Ratio | 4.24 | 2.95 | 0.94 | 0.78 | 1.07 | 1.36 | 0.96 | 0.46 | 0.31 | 1.43 | 0.72 |
| P/B Ratio | 4.12 | 2.55 | 1.14 | 0.94 | 1.18 | 1.64 | 1.33 | 0.39 | 0.31 | 1.47 | 0.56 |
| P/FCF | — | — | 3.83 | 12.29 | 264.63 | 6.77 | 8.13 | — | — | 4.75 | 12.60 |
| P/OCF | 12.99 | 9.04 | 2.46 | 2.70 | 5.18 | 3.37 | 3.11 | 2.75 | 1.15 | 2.56 | 5.58 |
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 | — | 3.78 | 1.96 | 1.81 | 2.26 | 2.04 | 1.60 | 1.72 | 1.21 | 2.09 | 1.85 |
| EV / EBITDA | 13.69 | 10.21 | 7.91 | 3.90 | 9.62 | 4.22 | 5.61 | 11.18 | 4.11 | 4.99 | 14.25 |
| EV / EBIT | 24.71 | 66.36 | 12.32 | 5.38 | 45.15 | 8.05 | 212.84 | — | 22.15 | 8.13 | — |
| EV / FCF | — | — | 7.97 | 28.61 | 557.53 | 10.18 | 13.49 | — | — | 6.94 | 32.60 |
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 | 26.0% | 26.0% | 19.3% | 39.5% | 13.8% | 37.8% | 6.9% | -13.3% | 12.0% | 34.4% | 0.7% |
| Operating Margin | 20.5% | 20.5% | 12.5% | 35.5% | 10.2% | 33.1% | — | -18.4% | 8.3% | 28.6% | -7.1% |
| Net Profit Margin | -4.5% | -4.5% | -2.2% | 15.8% | -6.6% | 8.4% | -6.9% | -16.2% | -10.4% | 9.1% | -11.9% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -4.7% | -4.7% | -2.9% | 20.9% | -7.3% | 12.0% | -8.5% | -12.7% | -10.0% | 9.7% | -8.9% |
| ROA | -1.3% | -1.3% | -0.7% | 5.8% | -2.1% | 3.8% | -2.9% | -4.4% | -3.6% | 3.5% | -3.3% |
| ROIC | 8.4% | 8.4% | 5.5% | 15.5% | 4.1% | 19.1% | — | -5.5% | 3.4% | 12.9% | -2.1% |
| ROCE | 6.5% | 6.5% | 4.5% | 14.4% | 3.6% | 16.5% | — | -5.4% | 3.1% | 11.9% | -2.1% |
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 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 1.57 | 1.47 | 1.65 | 1.49 | 1.15 | 1.24 | 1.02 | 0.90 | 1.15 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 3.00 | 3.00 | 5.25 | 2.62 | 6.37 | 2.54 | 2.91 | 9.55 | 3.50 | 2.08 | 11.34 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 0.72 | 1.23 | 1.25 | 1.31 | 0.83 | 0.88 | 1.06 | 0.89 | 0.68 | 0.89 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 2.24 | 2.24 | 4.10 | 2.23 | 5.06 | 1.41 | 2.23 | 8.19 | 3.05 | 1.57 | 8.74 |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | 4.13 | 16.33 | 292.90 | 3.40 | 5.37 | — | — | 2.19 | 20.00 |
| Interest Coverage | 0.44 | 0.44 | 1.23 | 4.06 | 0.51 | 2.81 | 0.07 | -1.11 | 0.55 | 2.91 | -0.54 |
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 | 1.50 | 1.50 | 1.71 | 1.77 | 2.14 | 3.26 | 2.00 | 1.69 | 1.82 | 2.37 | 3.02 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.92 | 0.92 | 1.04 | 0.90 | 1.31 | 2.49 | 1.25 | 1.04 | 1.14 | 1.73 | 1.91 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.69 | 1.10 | 2.32 | 1.11 | 0.80 | 0.86 | 1.35 | 1.65 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.34 | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.48 | 0.29 | 0.35 | 0.38 | 0.28 |
| Inventory Turnover | 3.73 | 3.73 | 3.53 | 2.58 | 3.63 | 3.37 | 6.92 | 6.60 | 7.76 | 6.26 | 4.33 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 7.07 | 3.39 | 11.48 | 12.32 | 8.09 | 5.58 | 19.81 | 15.64 | 18.66 | 17.85 |
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 | — | — | — | 20.0% | — | 6.3% | — | — | — | 6.4% | — |
| FCF Yield | — | — | 26.1% | 8.1% | 0.4% | 14.8% | 12.3% | — | — | 21.1% | 7.9% |
| 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 | — | $351M | $295M | $291M | $286M | $288M | $251M | $244M | $228M | $232M | $222M |
Florence Copper execution risk
According to recent market data, Taseko trades at a forward EV/EBITDA of 7.11x, which, when compared to peers like Hudbay Minerals at 9.75x, suggests that investors are heavily discounting the company's valuation due to the persistent execution risks associated with the Florence Copper project development.
The wide gap between Taseko's valuation multiples and those of its mid-tier peers indicates that the market is pricing in a high probability of further capital expenditure overruns or permitting delays. While the forward P/E of 12.92x appears attractive, it relies on optimistic production ramp-up assumptions that may not materialize if the company is forced to issue additional equity to bridge funding gaps.
Based on reported financial figures, Taseko's ROIC has struggled to maintain positive momentum, fluctuating between -0.6% and 6.3% over the last ten quarters, which highlights the difficulty of generating meaningful returns on invested capital while the company remains in a heavy capital-intensive growth phase.
The inconsistent ROIC trend suggests that the capital deployed into the Gibraltar mine and Florence project has yet to reach an inflection point where it contributes to sustained value creation. Investors should monitor whether the transition to 100% ownership of Gibraltar can improve capital efficiency, or if the current asset base remains too mature to support higher return thresholds.
As reported in quarterly filings, Taseko's cash conversion cycle has shown extreme instability, swinging from -16 days to 38 days, which suggests that the company's working capital management is highly sensitive to inventory accumulation and the timing of copper concentrate shipments to off-take partners.
The erratic nature of the CCC reflects the operational challenges of managing a single-asset production profile where inventory levels can build up rapidly during logistics disruptions. This lack of efficiency in converting production into cash flow places additional pressure on the balance sheet, particularly during periods of depressed copper prices.
According to recent balance sheet data, Taseko's debt-to-EBITDA ratio has reached as high as 52.24x in 2025Q2, a figure that underscores the company's precarious leverage position and the significant strain that high-coupon debt places on its ability to navigate cyclical commodity downturns.
The interest coverage ratio, which has dipped into negative territory multiple times, suggests that the company's debt service capacity is currently insufficient to support its capital structure without external financing. This reliance on debt to fund growth projects warrants close investigation, as any further deterioration in interest coverage could trigger covenant concerns.
As indicated by the company's volatile earnings history, the P/E ratio is a fundamentally flawed metric for Taseko, as it fails to account for the massive non-cash depreciation and capitalized stripping costs that frequently distort net income and obscure the company's true underlying cash-generating capacity.
Investors should instead focus on EV/EBITDA or price-to-cash-flow metrics, which provide a clearer view of operational performance by stripping away the accounting noise inherent in mining development. Relying on P/E in this context risks misinterpreting a temporary accounting loss as a permanent impairment of the business model's viability.
Includes 30+ ratios · 29 years · Updated daily
DCF models, multiple analysis, and analyst estimates.
10-year return with dividends reinvested.
See how regular investing compounds over time.
Compare growth, multiples, and margins vs sector.
Quick answers to the most common questions about buying TGB stock.
Taseko Mines Limited's current P/E ratio is -98.5x. The historical average is 17.9x.
Taseko Mines Limited's current EV/EBITDA is 13.7x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 11.3x.
Taseko Mines Limited's return on equity (ROE) is -4.7%. The historical average is -5.9%.
Based on historical data, Taseko Mines Limited is trading at a P/E of -98.5x. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Taseko Mines Limited has 26.0% gross margin and 20.5% operating margin. Operating margin above 20% indicates strong pricing power and cost efficiency.
Taseko Mines Limited's Debt/EBITDA ratio is 3.0x, indicating moderate leverage. A ratio between 2-4x is manageable but warrants monitoring.