Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -1.8x · EV/EBITDA N/A · ROE -24.9%. (2012–2025 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 | $142M | $89M | $144M | $213M | $408M | $84M | $203M | $99M | $809M | $817M | $479M |
| Enterprise Value | $43M | $-9234100 | $101M | $260M | $511M | $190M | $302M | $222M | $742M | $912M | $450M |
| P/E Ratio → | -1.80 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3.43 | 13.82 | — |
| P/S Ratio | 3.20 | 2.02 | 0.77 | 0.69 | 1.13 | 0.37 | 0.65 | 0.16 | 0.48 | 1.18 | 2.08 |
| P/B Ratio | 0.55 | 0.35 | 0.57 | 0.46 | 0.88 | 0.18 | 0.36 | 0.15 | 1.07 | 1.61 | 1.13 |
| P/FCF | — | — | 0.88 | 17.77 | 161.35 | — | 1562.43 | — | 4.16 | — | 28.53 |
| P/OCF | — | — | 0.80 | 6.79 | 26.73 | — | 29.15 | — | 2.09 | 14.19 | 17.04 |
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 | — | -0.21 | 0.54 | 0.84 | 1.41 | 0.83 | 0.96 | 0.36 | 0.44 | 1.32 | 1.95 |
| EV / EBITDA | — | — | — | 10.74 | 11.63 | — | 21.74 | 7.48 | 1.42 | 5.68 | 11.37 |
| EV / EBIT | — | — | — | 10.26 | 20.86 | — | — | — | 1.89 | 13.79 | — |
| EV / FCF | — | — | 0.62 | 21.67 | 202.05 | — | 2319.59 | — | 3.81 | — | 26.79 |
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 | -19.3% | -19.3% | -4.2% | 5.3% | 5.3% | -20.9% | -4.6% | -5.7% | 28.2% | 16.9% | -6.4% |
| Operating Margin | -63.5% | -63.5% | -70.6% | -6.8% | -5.6% | -55.1% | -26.0% | -14.0% | 23.9% | 9.9% | -14.2% |
| Net Profit Margin | -143.9% | -143.9% | -110.3% | -1.0% | -0.2% | -44.3% | -34.4% | -12.6% | 14.0% | 8.5% | -40.1% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -24.9% | -24.9% | -58.2% | -0.7% | -0.1% | -19.8% | -17.5% | -11.1% | 37.4% | 12.7% | -24.8% |
| ROA | -17.7% | -17.7% | -38.3% | -0.4% | -0.1% | -13.1% | -12.1% | -7.8% | 24.3% | 8.6% | -19.4% |
| ROIC | -11.4% | -11.4% | -27.8% | -2.9% | -2.7% | -15.4% | -8.4% | -8.9% | 47.0% | 10.3% | -6.1% |
| ROCE | -10.5% | -10.5% | -33.8% | -4.2% | -3.8% | -19.9% | -10.7% | -10.5% | 54.3% | 12.2% | -7.3% |
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 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.20 | 0.19 | — | 0.20 | — |
| Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | 2.61 | 2.74 | — | 8.17 | 4.34 | — | 0.62 | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | -0.38 | -0.17 | 0.10 | 0.22 | 0.23 | 0.17 | 0.18 | -0.09 | 0.19 | -0.07 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | 1.93 | 2.34 | — | 7.10 | 4.14 | -0.13 | 0.59 | -0.74 |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | -0.26 | 3.90 | 40.69 | — | 757.16 | — | -0.35 | — | -1.74 |
| Interest Coverage | -16.85 | -16.85 | -7.67 | 1.56 | 2.13 | -18.40 | -21.19 | -17.38 | 123.13 | 15.34 | -8.42 |
Net cash position: cash ($102M) exceeds total debt ($3M)
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 | 2.53 | 2.53 | 1.65 | 2.72 | 2.09 | 2.93 | 3.61 | 3.12 | 1.92 | 1.43 | 3.04 |
| Quick Ratio | 2.47 | 2.47 | 1.51 | 2.65 | 2.06 | 2.88 | 3.52 | 2.99 | 1.83 | 1.35 | 2.83 |
| Cash Ratio | 1.74 | 1.74 | 0.53 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.29 | 0.03 | 1.00 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.13 | 0.49 | 0.44 | 0.50 | 0.32 | 0.38 | 0.66 | 1.57 | 0.80 | 0.46 |
| Inventory Turnover | 12.95 | 12.95 | 12.95 | 23.15 | 38.60 | 33.09 | 27.23 | 37.80 | 56.97 | 32.26 | 40.06 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 238.44 | 153.47 | 527.41 | 460.36 | 649.84 | 491.49 | 216.41 | 75.29 | 146.49 | 77.17 |
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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 11.3% | 1.4% | — | 1.0% |
| Payout Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 4.7% | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 29.1% | 7.2% | — |
| FCF Yield | — | — | 113.5% | 5.6% | 0.6% | — | 0.1% | — | 24.1% | — | 3.5% |
| 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% | 11.3% | 1.4% | 0.0% | 1.0% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $48M | $48M | $48M | $47M | $46M | $46M | $45M | $45M | $42M | $32M |
Persistent negative operating margins
According to recent market data, TUSK trades at a P/S multiple of 3.20, which appears disconnected from its negative earnings profile and suggests the market is pricing the company as a speculative recovery play rather than a traditional industrial conglomerate with predictable cash flow generation.
The lack of a meaningful P/E or EV/EBITDA multiple reflects the company's current inability to generate positive operating income. Investors should monitor whether this valuation premium over book value is supported by the potential for asset liquidation or if it represents an overestimation of the company's remaining operational optionality.
Based on historical financial statements, TUSK's ROIC has remained consistently negative, reaching -0.7% in 2026Q1, which indicates that the company is currently destroying shareholder value rather than compounding it through its core infrastructure and oilfield service operations.
The persistent inability to generate returns above the cost of capital suggests that the firm's heavy investment in specialized equipment is not being matched by sufficient utilization. This trend warrants further investigation into whether the current asset base is fundamentally oversized for the company's diminished revenue environment.
As reported in quarterly filings, TUSK's cash conversion cycle has shown extreme volatility, peaking at 1722 days in 2024Q2, which highlights a severe lack of efficiency in managing receivables and inventory compared to more stable industrial peers in the infrastructure and energy services sectors.
The extended DSO figures suggest that the company faces significant challenges in collecting payments from its project-based contracts, creating a structural liquidity bottleneck. This inefficiency forces the company to rely on its cash reserves to bridge the gap between service delivery and actual cash realization.
According to the latest balance sheet, TUSK maintains a current ratio of 2.45 as of 2026Q1, which provides a superficial appearance of liquidity that is undermined by the company's ongoing inability to generate positive free cash flow from its core service operations.
While the current ratio appears healthy relative to historical norms, it is heavily dependent on the valuation of current assets that may be difficult to convert to cash in a distressed scenario. Investors should monitor the burn rate against the $92.7 million cash position to assess the remaining runway.
The price-to-book ratio is frequently misapplied to TUSK, as it obscures the reality that the company's reported book value may be significantly overstated due to the potential for future impairments on specialized equipment that is currently failing to generate positive gross margins.
A more appropriate metric for this business model would be a sum-of-the-parts liquidation analysis, which accounts for the realizable value of the fleet and the probability-weighted recovery of contested receivables. Relying on P/B ignores the risk that the company's assets may be worth substantially less than their carrying value.
Includes 30+ ratios · 14 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 TUSK stock.
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc.'s current P/E ratio is -1.8x. The historical average is 8.6x.
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc.'s return on equity (ROE) is -24.9%. The historical average is -10.0%.
Based on historical data, Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. is trading at a P/E of -1.8x. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. has -19.3% gross margin and -63.5% operating margin.