Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -13.1x · EV/EBITDA N/A · ROE -47.3%. (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 | $4.9B | $4.0B | $4.4B | $1.8B | $722M | $355M | $409M | $577M | $440M | $105M | $19M |
| Enterprise Value | $4.7B | $3.8B | $4.4B | $1.7B | $687M | $329M | $380M | $569M | $416M | $100M | $20M |
| P/E Ratio → | -13.06 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/B Ratio | 7.34 | 6.20 | 4.98 | 5.04 | 4.97 | 1.76 | 1.67 | 2.08 | 1.48 | 7.83 | 2.41 |
| P/FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBIT | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Operating Margin | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Profit Margin | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -47.3% | -47.3% | -17.9% | -34.8% | -39.7% | -24.6% | -15.1% | -9.0% | -14.2% | -191.4% | -175.7% |
| ROA | -44.3% | -44.3% | -17.2% | -32.0% | -36.3% | -23.5% | -14.6% | -8.8% | -13.6% | -112.3% | -98.3% |
| ROIC | -44.4% | -44.4% | -19.7% | -37.4% | -36.9% | -21.4% | -13.2% | -9.0% | -14.0% | -177.0% | -113.2% |
| ROCE | -51.8% | -51.8% | -24.5% | -40.7% | -40.4% | -25.0% | -16.4% | -11.4% | -16.8% | -177.2% | -128.7% |
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 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | — | 0.26 | 0.41 |
| Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | -0.26 | -0.03 | -0.16 | -0.24 | -0.13 | -0.12 | -0.03 | -0.08 | -0.41 | 0.02 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | -6421.13 | -6421.13 | -1168.82 | -975.08 | -1166.24 | -3054.00 | -371.59 | -175.57 | -38.26 | -9.55 | -6.25 |
Net cash position: cash ($166M) exceeds total debt ($137000)
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 | 9.33 | 9.33 | 33.09 | 19.19 | 7.61 | 23.98 | 21.11 | 41.83 | 66.40 | 2.52 | 2.16 |
| Quick Ratio | 9.33 | 9.33 | 33.09 | 19.19 | 7.61 | 23.98 | 21.11 | 41.83 | 66.40 | 2.52 | 2.16 |
| Cash Ratio | 9.21 | 9.21 | 32.93 | 18.92 | 7.08 | 23.02 | 20.48 | 40.67 | 66.27 | 2.38 | 2.03 |
| Asset Turnover | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| FCF Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $113M | $109M | $94M | $77M | $77M | $73M | $72M | $58M | $26M | $16M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 14 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 VKTX stock.
Viking Therapeutics, Inc.'s current P/E ratio is -13.1x. This places it at the 50th percentile of its historical range.
Viking Therapeutics, Inc.'s return on equity (ROE) is -47.3%. The historical average is -76.2%.
Based on historical data, Viking Therapeutics, Inc. is trading at a P/E of -13.1x. This is at the 50th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
R&D cost escalation
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Deepening Losses Reflect R&D Intensity
VKTX's net margin remains deeply negative, with ROE deteriorating from -4.3% in 2024Q1 to -28.1% in 2026Q2, according to reported financials, reflecting escalating clinical investment with no revenue.
The absence of revenue means all profitability metrics are driven by expense growth, particularly R&D, which surged 380% over the period. The widening net losses, from -$27.4M to -$128.0M quarterly, indicate that the company is in a heavy investment phase, likely for pivotal trials. Investors should monitor whether these losses translate into future product approvals and revenue generation, as current profitability is unsustainable without a commercial catalyst.
Return on Capital Decaying with Burn
ROIC has deteriorated from -4.9% in 2024Q1 to -29.7% in 2026Q2, per balance sheet data, as capital invested in R&D yields no current return, reflecting a typical pre-revenue biotech profile.
The negative and declining ROIC indicates that the company is consuming capital faster than it can generate returns, a common pattern for clinical-stage biotechs. The asset-light model, with negligible PP&E, means returns are driven entirely by intangible R&D investments. This trend is expected to continue until a product reaches commercialization, and the market's valuation likely hinges on pipeline potential rather than current returns.
Liquidity Buffer Compressing Rapidly
Current ratio fell from 29.48 in 2024Q1 to 4.72 in 2026Q2, while cash dropped to $125.8M, covering less than one quarter of operating expenses, based on reported balance sheet data.
The rapid compression of the current ratio, though still above 1, signals that the liquidity cushion is shrinking as cash burn accelerates. With quarterly operating losses exceeding $130M, the current cash position may only sustain operations for a few months, suggesting a likely need for near-term capital raises. The quick ratio equals the current ratio, indicating no inventory dependence, but the lack of revenue means liquidity is solely dependent on external financing.
Minimal Debt Provides Flexibility
VKTX's debt-to-equity ratio is just 0.01, with total debt of $4.1M, according to the latest balance sheet, indicating virtually no leverage and ample borrowing capacity.
The near-zero leverage is a positive signal, as it provides financial flexibility to fund R&D through debt if equity markets become unfavorable. However, the negative interest coverage (e.g., -11347 in 2025Q3) is not meaningful given the minimal debt; the company's risk lies in equity dilution rather than debt service. Investors should monitor whether the company taps debt markets to extend its runway, which would increase leverage but preserve shareholder value.
Asset-Light Model with Minimal Working Capital
Asset turnover is negligible due to zero revenue, and working capital metrics like DSO and DIO are unavailable, but the asset-light model is evident from zero capex, as per cash flow statements.
The efficiency ratios are largely uninformative for a pre-revenue biotech, as there are no sales to measure turnover or collection periods. The company's efficiency is better assessed by its cash burn rate relative to R&D output, which has escalated sharply. The minimal working capital requirements and zero capex indicate that all cash is directed to clinical development, a strategy that may be efficient in advancing the pipeline but is not reflected in traditional efficiency metrics.
Misapplied P/E in Pre-Revenue Biotech
The P/E ratio of -10.60 is meaningless for VKTX given no earnings; instead, investors should focus on cash runway and pipeline value, as reported financials show no revenue.
Commonly, investors apply P/E to biotechs, but for VKTX, with no revenue and negative earnings, this metric offers no insight. The appropriate valuation approach is to assess the probability-adjusted net present value of the pipeline, particularly VK2735, and compare it to the current cash burn. The P/B ratio of 5.96 may also be misleading, as book value is dominated by cash and intangible R&D, which may not reflect the true value of the pipeline. Investors should use EV/Sales or EV/EBITDA, but these are also undefined; thus, a DCF or comparable transactions approach is more suitable.