Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 10.8x · EV/EBITDA 11.8x · ROE 14.1%. (1997–2026 historical series)
Price-based multiples — how expensive the stock is relative to earnings, sales, book value, and cash flow
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $330M | $338M | $122M | $163M | $156M | $121M | $189M | $73M | $191M | $283M | $181M |
| Enterprise Value | $359M | $367M | $155M | $192M | $172M | $156M | $221M | $118M | $235M | $272M | $171M |
| P/E Ratio → | 10.77 | 12.47 | — | 14.91 | 15.01 | 11.62 | — | — | 17.98 | 29.55 | — |
| P/S Ratio | 0.84 | 0.89 | 0.36 | 0.55 | 0.56 | 0.50 | 0.86 | 0.30 | 0.63 | 1.17 | 1.08 |
| P/B Ratio | 1.52 | 1.54 | 0.74 | 1.05 | 1.07 | 0.92 | 1.44 | 0.52 | 1.05 | 1.97 | 1.47 |
| P/FCF | 12.73 | 36.84 | 13.87 | 6.54 | 10.38 | — | 91.33 | — | — | 1545.49 | 4031.05 |
| P/OCF | 14.39 | 14.78 | 5.10 | 4.85 | 6.79 | — | 28.88 | 7.99 | — | 43.44 | 57.08 |
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 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EV / Revenue | — | 0.96 | 0.46 | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.64 | 1.01 | 0.48 | 0.78 | 1.13 | 1.02 |
| EV / EBITDA | 11.82 | 11.59 | 6.27 | 8.93 | 6.75 | 7.57 | — | — | 8.44 | 12.74 | — |
| EV / EBIT | 19.96 | 22.03 | 35.21 | 11.40 | 10.27 | 10.58 | — | — | 14.25 | 14.86 | — |
| EV / FCF | — | 40.00 | 17.62 | 7.66 | 11.46 | — | 107.14 | — | — | 1488.94 | 3807.85 |
Margins and return-on-capital ratios measuring operating efficiency
Full margin charts and quarterly trend are on the Earnings History page
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 26.9% | 26.9% | 27.2% | 28.2% | 26.8% | 28.3% | 23.3% | 22.6% | 29.6% | 33.3% | 28.7% |
| Operating Margin | 4.7% | 4.7% | 2.9% | 3.9% | 5.8% | 4.5% | -5.6% | -16.3% | 6.1% | 6.2% | -5.3% |
| Net Profit Margin | 7.1% | 7.1% | -0.6% | 3.7% | 3.7% | 4.3% | -13.6% | -16.1% | 3.5% | 4.0% | -3.7% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 14.1% | 14.1% | -1.2% | 7.3% | 7.5% | 8.0% | -22.0% | -24.7% | 6.5% | 7.1% | -5.2% |
| ROA | 7.2% | 7.2% | -0.6% | 3.7% | 3.7% | 3.8% | -10.4% | -12.4% | 3.7% | 4.3% | -3.0% |
| ROIC | 6.0% | 6.0% | 3.9% | 5.0% | 7.4% | 5.0% | -5.3% | -14.7% | 7.7% | 9.1% | -6.1% |
| ROCE | 7.0% | 7.0% | 4.5% | 5.7% | 8.4% | 5.6% | -5.8% | -16.1% | 8.3% | 8.8% | -5.2% |
Solvency and debt-coverage ratios — lower is generally safer
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debt / Equity | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.30 | 0.31 | 0.20 | 0.36 | 0.34 | 0.40 | 0.30 | 0.03 | 0.05 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 1.42 | 1.42 | 1.98 | 2.25 | 1.16 | 2.29 | — | — | 2.00 | 0.23 | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 0.13 | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.11 | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.32 | 0.24 | -0.07 | -0.08 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 0.91 | 0.91 | 1.33 | 1.31 | 0.64 | 1.68 | — | — | 1.56 | -0.48 | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | 3.16 | 3.75 | 1.13 | 1.08 | — | 15.81 | — | — | -56.54 | -223.20 |
| Interest Coverage | 5.42 | 5.42 | 1.67 | 11.65 | 7.42 | 6.92 | -3.17 | -24.80 | 8.55 | 65.00 | -30.45 |
Short-term solvency ratios and asset-utilisation metrics
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio | 2.35 | 2.35 | 1.96 | 2.21 | 2.19 | 2.52 | 2.44 | 2.61 | 2.77 | 2.55 | 2.91 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.75 | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.95 | 0.98 | 0.80 | 1.05 | 1.21 | 1.42 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.20 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.17 | 0.24 | 0.37 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.88 | 0.79 | 0.84 | 0.87 | 1.03 | 0.80 |
| Inventory Turnover | 1.57 | 1.57 | 1.63 | 1.62 | 1.54 | 1.37 | 1.46 | 1.58 | 1.69 | 1.91 | 1.81 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 63.91 | 63.14 | 64.57 | 72.17 | 68.30 | 65.94 | 45.37 | 53.08 | 68.87 | 68.13 |
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 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | 0.7% | 0.7% | 1.9% | 1.0% | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.1% | — | — | — | — |
| Payout Ratio | 8.4% | 8.4% | — | 15.4% | 2.3% | 2.0% | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | 9.3% | 8.0% | — | 6.7% | 6.7% | 8.6% | — | — | 5.6% | 3.4% | — |
| FCF Yield | 7.9% | 2.7% | 7.2% | 15.3% | 9.6% | — | 1.1% | — | — | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0% | 1.1% | 0.3% | 0.4% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.7% | 0.7% | 2.9% | 2.1% | 0.4% | 0.6% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $15M | $14M | $14M | $14M | $13M | $13M | $13M | $13M | $11M | $11M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 30 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 TWIN stock.
Twin Disc, Incorporated's current P/E ratio is 10.8x. The historical average is 20.7x. This places it at the 32th percentile of its historical range.
Twin Disc, Incorporated's current EV/EBITDA is 11.8x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 8.0x.
Twin Disc, Incorporated's return on equity (ROE) is 14.1%. The historical average is 5.3%.
Based on historical data, Twin Disc, Incorporated is trading at a P/E of 10.8x. This is at the 32th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Twin Disc, Incorporated's current dividend yield is 0.69% with a payout ratio of 8.4%.
Twin Disc, Incorporated has 26.9% gross margin and 4.7% operating margin.
Twin Disc, Incorporated's Debt/EBITDA ratio is 1.4x, indicating moderate leverage. A ratio below 2x is generally considered financially healthy.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Non-operating items distort earnings
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Market Pricing a Recovery, Not Current Returns
TWIN trades at 17.92x trailing EV/EBITDA but just 7.25x forward, a gap suggesting the market is pricing a sharp earnings recovery rather than current profitability; the negative TTM P/E of -203.61, per valuation data, renders headline earnings multiples unusable.
The 2.5x spread between trailing and forward EV/EBITDA appears to embed substantial EBITDA expansion, which would require operating margins to sustainably exceed the 6.8% posted in 2026Q4 rather than the roughly 2-6% range seen across most of the past two years. At 2.40x book versus Helios Technologies' 2.56x, TWIN is not priced at a discount to peers despite materially lower ROIC of 2.4% versus Helios' 4.4%, so valuation support appears to rest on cyclical recovery rather than structural competitive advantage. Investors should monitor whether forward estimates hold up if end-market demand decelerates.
Operating Margin Now the Cleaner Profit Lens
With operating margin improving to 6.8% in 2026Q4 from -0.2% a year earlier, operating income is the only reliable measure of earning power; net margin of 1.7% versus 24.8% in 2026Q2, as reported in financial statements, reflects non-operating swings rather than operations.
The divergence between operating and net results is stark: 2026Q2 recorded $22.4M of net income on just $2.1M of operating income, while 2026Q4 earned $1.9M on $7.8M of operating income, meaning net margin is essentially unusable as an earnings-quality signal over any single quarter. Gross margin compression to 26.3% from 31.0% in 2025Q4 warrants attention, as the operating leverage appears driven by SG&A discipline rather than pricing power — a dynamic that may prove less durable if volume growth stalls.
Returns on Capital Barely Clear the Waterline
ROIC of just 2.4% in 2026Q4 remains below Helios Technologies' 4.4% and far under WD-40's 26.2%, indicating capital returns lag sector leaders; according to SEC filings, the ten-quarter ROIC range of -0.1% to 2.4% suggests returns are only marginally above estimated cost of capital.
The ROIC improvement from 0.7% in 2026Q2 to 2.4% in 2026Q4 appears margin-driven rather than efficiency-driven, since asset turnover has only edged up to 0.29 from 0.22 while net PPE grew 50% over two years to $82.8M. ROE of 0.9% versus ROIC of 2.4% signals the capital base is expanding faster than earnings, so the recent deleveraging and retained earnings build may not yet translate into compounding per-share value. Should the PPE buildout fail to produce volume gains, ROIC could remain structurally suppressed.
Inventory Build Caps Working-Capital Release
Twin Disc's cash conversion cycle of 207 days in 2026Q4, driven by 191 days of inventory versus 38 days of payables, has compressed from 248 days a year ago, per reported figures, indicating meaningful working-capital release as the business reaccelerates.
The cycle compression mirrors the FCF swing from -$11.0M in 2026Q1 to $17.2M in 2026Q4, suggesting much of the cash inflection is timing-related rather than a structural improvement in unit economics, since DSO of 54 days and DPO of 38 days have moved only modestly. Inventory at 191 days against a 0.29x asset turnover remains the binding constraint, and the quick ratio of 0.84 versus a current ratio of 2.35 confirms the balance sheet is heavily dependent on inventory realization. Any demand softening in this machinery end-market could reverse the working-capital tailwind quickly.
Deleveraging Eases Pressure on Covenants
Total debt-to-equity fell to 0.20 in 2026Q4 from 0.41, while D/EBITDA dropped to 3.99x from an 11.68x peak, per company filings; interest coverage of 4.02x suggests debt service is currently comfortable, though EBITDA volatility limits the metric's stability.
The improvement appears driven by both debt repayment to $45M and EBITDA recovery, so coverage could deteriorate quickly if operating margins revert toward the 2-3% levels seen in 2025, when interest coverage fell as low as 0.58x in 2025Q3. With D/E at 0.20, balance-sheet risk appears low in absolute terms, yet the swing from negative coverage in early 2025 to 4.02x now shows the leverage metrics are highly cyclical for this business. Refinancing risk looks limited today, but coverage should be stress-tested against a mid-cycle margin scenario before assuming the comfortable position persists.
Trailing P/E Misleads on This Model
Trailing P/E is the ratio most commonly misapplied here — TWIN's -203.61 TTM figure and 2026Q2's 24.8% net margin on $2.1M of operating income, per valuation data, show net income is distorted; operating-margin-based EV/EBITDA should anchor valuation.
For a cyclical machinery manufacturer whose net income is buffeted by non-operating items — goodwill writedowns from $12.7M to $2.8M, deferred revenue recognition spikes to $43.2M, and single-quarter earnings swings of over $20M — trailing net income measures misstate both the level and direction of earning power, making P/E, PEG, and net-margin comparisons against peers structurally unreliable. The more informative lens is operating-margin-based EV/EBITDA, which is why the forward 7.25x versus trailing 17.92x spread matters more than the headline multiple. Similarly, current and quick ratios can mislead given the 207-day inventory cycle; analysts should adjust liquidity views for inventory realization risk rather than accepting the 2.35x current ratio at face value.