Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 5.1x · EV/EBITDA -10.8x · ROE 22.4%. (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 | $862M | $1.8B | $1.1B | $715M | $522M | $765M | $1.1B | $501M | — | — | — |
| Enterprise Value | $-3157550155 | $-2230306911 | $877M | $565M | $412M | $650M | $1.1B | $447M | — | — | — |
| P/E Ratio → | 5.12 | 10.39 | 17.94 | 21.05 | — | 52.07 | 72.18 | — | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | 1.60 | 3.31 | 3.30 | 3.17 | 2.52 | 3.11 | 8.91 | 9.17 | — | — | — |
| P/B Ratio | 1.01 | 2.06 | 1.65 | 1.44 | 1.17 | 1.71 | 4.86 | 2.36 | — | — | — |
| P/FCF | 0.66 | 1.36 | 1.32 | — | 2.06 | 1.87 | 2.14 | 2.07 | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | 0.65 | 1.36 | 1.32 | — | 2.02 | 1.85 | 2.14 | 2.06 | — | — | — |
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 | — | -4.13 | 2.65 | 2.51 | 1.99 | 2.64 | 8.35 | 8.19 | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDA | -10.78 | -7.61 | 5.93 | 6.34 | 14.02 | 34.22 | 29.89 | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBIT | -11.18 | -7.92 | 6.15 | 6.08 | 19.92 | 36.81 | 33.37 | — | — | — | — |
| EV / FCF | — | -1.70 | 1.06 | — | 1.63 | 1.59 | 2.01 | 1.85 | — | — | — |
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 | 105.9% | 105.9% | 77.0% | 72.1% | 52.3% | 51.9% | 63.8% | 37.3% | -66.6% | 29.3% | -54.2% |
| Operating Margin | 52.3% | 52.3% | 42.1% | 35.4% | 9.9% | 7.2% | 24.2% | -11.1% | -139.7% | -53.2% | -247.2% |
| Net Profit Margin | 31.7% | 31.7% | 18.4% | 14.4% | -1.1% | 6.0% | 12.5% | -12.1% | -128.7% | -44.3% | -196.5% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 22.4% | 22.4% | 10.5% | 6.9% | -0.5% | 4.3% | 7.2% | -7.1% | — | -271.7% | -51.7% |
| ROA | 2.3% | 2.3% | 1.2% | 0.9% | -0.1% | 0.5% | 1.1% | -1.4% | -57.1% | -24.9% | -44.2% |
| ROIC | 22.5% | 22.5% | 13.8% | 9.3% | 2.5% | 3.1% | 10.1% | -4.7% | — | -244.6% | -48.8% |
| ROCE | 6.3% | 6.3% | 18.7% | 12.5% | 3.3% | 4.2% | 13.5% | -3.8% | -74.3% | -36.7% | -63.9% |
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 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.27 | 0.35 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 0.03 | 0.03 | — | — | — |
| Debt / EBITDA | 0.59 | 0.59 | 1.21 | 1.94 | 5.72 | 8.13 | 0.20 | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | -4.62 | -0.32 | -0.30 | -0.24 | -0.26 | -0.31 | -0.25 | — | — | -0.71 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | -13.72 | -13.72 | -1.45 | -1.68 | -3.72 | -6.03 | -2.02 | — | — | — | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | -3.07 | -0.26 | — | -0.43 | -0.28 | -0.14 | -0.22 | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | 3.83 | 3.83 | 2.34 | 1.98 | 1.11 | 0.96 | 3.18 | -1.27 | — | — | — |
Net cash position: cash ($4.2B) exceeds total debt ($173M)
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 | 68.82 | 68.82 | 1.14 | 1.20 | 1.18 | 1.20 | 1.10 | 1.31 | 6.06 | 3.50 | 4.65 |
| Quick Ratio | 68.82 | 68.82 | 1.14 | 1.20 | 1.18 | 1.20 | 1.10 | 1.31 | 6.06 | 3.50 | 4.65 |
| Cash Ratio | 35.55 | 35.55 | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 2.03 | 2.04 | 4.65 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.29 | 0.47 | 0.22 |
| Inventory Turnover | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 | 19.5% | 9.6% | 5.6% | 4.8% | — | 1.9% | 1.4% | — | — | — | — |
| FCF Yield | 100.0% | 73.3% | 75.7% | — | 48.5% | 53.4% | 46.7% | 48.3% | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.4% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.0% | — | — | — |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.4% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.0% | — | — | — |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $187M | $169M | $162M | $153M | $156M | $144M | $141M | $133M | $108M | $108M |
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 TIGR stock.
UP Fintech Holding Ltd. Sponsored ADR Class A's current P/E ratio is 5.1x. The historical average is 34.7x.
UP Fintech Holding Ltd. Sponsored ADR Class A's current EV/EBITDA is -10.8x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 18.1x.
UP Fintech Holding Ltd. Sponsored ADR Class A's return on equity (ROE) is 22.4%. This is above the typical threshold of 15-20% considered good for most companies. The historical average is -31.1%.
Based on historical data, UP Fintech Holding Ltd. Sponsored ADR Class A is trading at a P/E of 5.1x. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
UP Fintech Holding Ltd. Sponsored ADR Class A has 105.9% gross margin and 52.3% operating margin. Operating margin above 20% indicates strong pricing power and cost efficiency.
UP Fintech Holding Ltd. Sponsored ADR Class A's Debt/EBITDA ratio is 0.6x, indicating low leverage. A ratio below 2x is generally considered financially healthy.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Regulatory and geopolitical sensitivity
P/B Premium Reflects Growth, Not Tangible Assets
TIGR trades at a P/B of 1.09, a significant discount to peers like FUTU (3.35) and HOOD (12.26), yet its P/B of 4.87 on a tangible basis suggests the market is pricing in substantial future earnings power beyond its current thin equity base.
The current P/B of 1.09 appears low relative to the P/B of 4.87 on tangible book value per share, indicating the market is not valuing TIGR on its current asset base but rather on its earnings trajectory and platform scalability. This valuation gap versus peers like FUTU suggests the market may be discounting TIGR for its higher regulatory risk and smaller capital cushion, despite its recent operational inflection. The PEG ratio of 0.10 implies the market expects very high future growth, which must be validated by sustained profitability and capital generation.
ROE Recovery Driven by NIM Inflection
TIGR's ROE improved to 4.8% in 2026Q2 from a negative -0.4% in 2023Q4, a recovery primarily driven by the net interest margin turning positive at 0.6% after eight consecutive negative quarters, as reported in recent financial statements.
The DuPont decomposition reveals that the ROE improvement is not from leverage, which has actually compressed (Equity/Assets fell from 0.13 to 0.09), but from a fundamental shift in profitability drivers. The positive NIM and a more balanced revenue mix (Fee % dropped from 129.6% to 63.7%) indicate the business is successfully scaling its interest-earning activities. However, the ROE remains well below peers like FUTU (31.3%), suggesting significant room for improvement or structural differences in the business model.
NIM Turns Positive as Efficiency Improves
The net interest margin inflected to 0.6% in 2026Q2 from -0.2% in 2025Q2, while the efficiency ratio improved dramatically to 57.0% from 89.1% in 2023Q4, indicating a dual benefit from better asset deployment and operating leverage.
The positive NIM suggests TIGR is now earning more on its deployed assets (likely margin loans and client cash) than it pays in funding costs, a critical milestone for a balance-sheet-driven model. The efficiency ratio's improvement is particularly striking, falling from a peak of 89.1% to 57.0%, which implies that revenue growth is significantly outpacing the growth in operating expenses. This trend, if sustained, points to a maturing cost structure where fixed technology and compliance costs are being spread over a larger revenue base.
Thin Equity Cushion Constrains Growth
The equity-to-assets ratio has compressed to 0.09 in 2026Q2 from 0.14 in 2023Q2, indicating that the rapid 165% growth in total assets to $9.8B has been funded almost entirely by client liabilities rather than organic capital generation.
This leverage profile is a double-edged sword: it amplifies ROE when returns are positive but leaves minimal buffer for asset impairments or market downturns. The thin equity base, combined with the absence of a dividend or buyback program, suggests management is prioritizing growth over capital return, which may be necessary but increases risk. Investors should monitor whether the company can generate sufficient retained earnings to organically grow its capital base or if future equity raises will be required to support further expansion.
Provision Swing Signals Improved Credit Dynamics
The provision for credit losses reversed from a $23.9 million expense in 2025Q2 to a $9.2 million benefit in 2026Q2, a $33.1 million swing that appears to be a key driver of recent net income improvement and may indicate improved credit quality or reserve releases.
This dramatic reversal in provisions suggests that the margin loan portfolio is performing better than previously reserved for, or that management has released reserves built during a more uncertain period. However, the sustainability of this benefit is questionable, as a sharp equity market correction could quickly reverse these gains and lead to new impairments. The lack of detailed disclosure on the composition and collateral quality of the margin book makes it difficult to assess the true underlying risk, warranting further investigation.
P/E Misleads on a Volatile Provision Cycle
The P/E ratio of 5.52 appears artificially low because it is heavily influenced by the volatile provision for credit losses, which swung from a major expense to a benefit, distorting the underlying earnings power of the core brokerage and financing business.
For a company like TIGR where credit provisions can swing by tens of millions of dollars quarter-to-quarter, the P/E ratio is a poor measure of sustainable earnings. The market may be correctly pricing the stock at a low multiple because it recognizes that the current earnings level includes a non-recurring provision benefit. A more appropriate metric would be to analyze the pre-provision, pre-tax profit or to use a normalized earnings figure that strips out the volatility of credit costs to assess the true run-rate profitability of the platform.