Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 28.5x · EV/EBITDA 8.3x · ROE -1.0%. (2013–2025 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 | $14.6B | $5.5B | $4.6B | $2.3B | $2.4B | $1.5B | $787M | $1.5B | $1.9B | $2.4B | $1.3B |
| Enterprise Value | $16.8B | $7.7B | $5.7B | $3.4B | $3.0B | $2.2B | $1.3B | $2.1B | $2.3B | $2.5B | $1.4B |
| P/E Ratio → | 28.55 | — | 12.85 | 11.67 | 15.89 | 25.07 | — | 32.88 | 12.96 | 21.80 | — |
| P/S Ratio | 6.54 | 4.09 | 5.36 | 2.82 | 2.78 | 2.89 | 3.15 | 5.11 | 6.46 | 14.16 | 16.80 |
| P/B Ratio | 0.56 | 0.53 | 1.18 | 0.81 | 1.04 | 0.65 | 0.42 | 0.71 | 1.51 | 2.66 | 2.43 |
| P/FCF | 10.01 | — | — | — | 3.78 | 56.19 | 6.01 | — | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | 13.89 | 5.23 | 7.44 | 3.65 | 3.44 | 4.75 | 4.00 | 6.44 | 7.63 | 17.49 | 19.37 |
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 | — | 5.71 | 6.59 | 4.09 | 3.42 | 4.35 | 5.30 | 7.07 | 7.81 | 14.56 | 18.20 |
| EV / EBITDA | 8.28 | 6.47 | 7.26 | 4.42 | 3.70 | 4.72 | 8.62 | 7.75 | 8.61 | 16.23 | 70.24 |
| EV / EBIT | 29.01 | — | 9.81 | 5.69 | 4.48 | 7.51 | — | 10.50 | 11.10 | 22.00 | — |
| EV / FCF | — | — | — | — | 4.66 | 84.61 | 10.11 | — | — | — | — |
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 | 47.9% | 47.9% | 68.0% | 76.2% | 79.5% | 73.1% | 51.8% | 67.4% | 73.0% | 70.3% | 55.3% |
| Operating Margin | 43.0% | 43.0% | 65.9% | 75.0% | 78.6% | 71.7% | 21.2% | 65.0% | 70.3% | 66.2% | -11.8% |
| Net Profit Margin | -5.1% | -5.1% | 41.8% | 24.2% | 17.5% | 11.5% | -77.1% | 15.5% | 49.9% | 64.8% | -13.8% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -1.0% | -1.0% | 10.6% | 7.7% | 6.7% | 2.8% | -9.6% | 2.7% | 13.4% | 15.3% | -2.1% |
| ROA | -0.8% | -0.8% | 7.9% | 5.8% | 5.1% | 2.1% | -7.3% | 2.1% | 10.8% | 13.2% | -1.8% |
| ROIC | 5.0% | 5.0% | 9.6% | 13.7% | 17.4% | 10.1% | 1.5% | 6.6% | 11.7% | 10.4% | -1.2% |
| ROCE | 6.6% | 6.6% | 12.6% | 18.1% | 23.0% | 13.3% | 2.0% | 8.8% | 15.3% | 13.6% | -1.6% |
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 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.28 | 0.38 | 0.25 | 0.35 | 0.30 | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.10 | 0.22 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 1.84 | 1.84 | 1.39 | 1.41 | 0.72 | 1.67 | 3.62 | 2.16 | 1.57 | 0.61 | 5.88 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 0.21 | 0.27 | 0.37 | 0.24 | 0.33 | 0.29 | 0.27 | 0.31 | 0.08 | 0.20 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 1.83 | 1.83 | 1.35 | 1.38 | 0.70 | 1.59 | 3.50 | 2.15 | 1.48 | 0.45 | 5.43 |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | — | 0.88 | 28.42 | 4.10 | — | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | -1.34 | -1.34 | 7.82 | 12.55 | 16.56 | 8.58 | -0.54 | 9.52 | 14.66 | 35.97 | -3.44 |
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 | 3.72 | 3.72 | 4.89 | 4.32 | 5.41 | 4.54 | 1.20 | 5.41 | 10.83 | 9.85 | 10.88 |
| Quick Ratio | 3.72 | 3.72 | 4.89 | 4.32 | 5.41 | 4.54 | 1.20 | 5.41 | 10.83 | 9.85 | 10.88 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.55 | 0.78 | 0.83 | 1.61 | 0.43 | 0.27 | 3.77 | 4.30 | 4.28 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.30 | 0.17 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.12 |
| Inventory Turnover | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 94.91 | 77.45 | 49.81 | 37.37 | 51.18 | 50.03 | 84.12 | 53.50 | 65.55 | 62.32 |
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 | 5.7% | 6.0% | 4.8% | 14.0% | 17.3% | 12.1% | 13.7% | 15.8% | 13.6% | 5.4% | 4.9% |
| Payout Ratio | — | — | 61.1% | 162.3% | 274.9% | 304.8% | — | 519.2% | 176.1% | 117.4% | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | 3.5% | — | 7.8% | 8.6% | 6.3% | 4.0% | — | 3.0% | 7.7% | 4.6% | — |
| FCF Yield | 10.0% | — | — | — | 26.4% | 1.8% | 16.6% | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 1.3% | 3.5% | 0.0% | 4.1% | 6.3% | 3.2% | 3.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 7.0% | 9.5% | 4.8% | 18.0% | 23.6% | 15.3% | 16.8% | 15.8% | 13.6% | 5.4% | 4.9% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $143M | $94M | $74M | $76M | $68M | $68M | $62M | $72M | $104M | $83M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 13 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 VNOM stock.
Viper Energy, Inc.'s current P/E ratio is 28.5x. The historical average is 26.7x. This places it at the 67th percentile of its historical range.
Viper Energy, Inc.'s current EV/EBITDA is 8.3x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 14.8x.
Viper Energy, Inc.'s return on equity (ROE) is -1.0%. The historical average is 5.0%.
Based on historical data, Viper Energy, Inc. is trading at a P/E of 28.5x. This is at the 67th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Viper Energy, Inc.'s current dividend yield is 5.67%.
Viper Energy, Inc. has 47.9% gross margin and 43.0% operating margin. Operating margin above 20% indicates strong pricing power and cost efficiency.
Viper Energy, Inc.'s Debt/EBITDA ratio is 1.8x, indicating moderate leverage. A ratio below 2x is generally considered financially healthy.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Negative net margin divergence
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Forward Multiples Compress Versus Trailing Losses
Based on VNOM's reported figures, trailing P/E is negative at -82.71 while forward P/E of 13.78 and forward EV/EBITDA of 10.45 sit well below the 13.88 trailing EV/EBITDA, implying the market expects bottom-line normalization rather than sustained losses.
The gap between trailing and forward earnings multiples suggests the market is discounting non-cash items driving the reported loss rather than treating them as a permanent impairment of earnings power. Against BSM's 11.21 P/E and 10.71 EV/EBITDA, VNOM's forward multiples appear roughly in line with a peer that carries a far lower share of acquisition-related volatility. Investors should monitor whether forward estimates hold, since the valuation case depends heavily on earnings normalization that the reported net margin does not yet demonstrate.
Operating Strength Masks Bottom-Line Volatility
As reported in quarterly statements, VNOM's operating margin of 60.4% in 2026Q3 contrasts sharply with a net margin of 21.2%, and the trailing year included quarters with net margins near -24%, indicating earnings quality rather than operating economics drives the swings.
A royalty model with minimal variable costs should produce stable operating margins, and the reported 33% to 64% band supports that structural read. The much wider swing in net margin points to non-operating or non-cash charges, consistent with depletion, derivative revaluation, or impairment effects. Net margin is therefore a poor proxy for true earning power here, and operating margin or distributable cash flow is the more reliable measure.
Returns Diluted by Acquisition-Driven Capital Growth
According to recent SEC filings, VNOM's ROIC of 2.4% in 2026Q3 is below the 16.1% reported by BSM, while ROE of 1.3% reflects an equity base that has expanded faster than cumulative earnings.
Ten-quarter ROIC has hovered between roughly 0.8% and 2.9%, meaning the capital deployed through acquisitions has not yet translated into compounding returns. The rise in invested capital from acquisitions outpaces the rise in earnings, which suggests returns are currently decaying rather than compounding. Whether this reverses depends on acquired acreage reaching full production and on margin stability.
Low Leverage Despite Rising Debt Balances
Based on VNOM's reported figures, debt-to-equity of 0.23 and debt-to-EBITDA of 3.96 in 2026Q3 remain moderate, though total debt rose from roughly $998M to $2.4B across the period while interest coverage of 12.30 stays comfortable.
Coverage metrics indicate debt service is currently comfortable, and the balance sheet remains far less levered than the scale of asset growth might suggest. However, debt-to-EBITDA swung as high as 7.36 during the 2025 loss quarters, showing that leverage optics depend heavily on earnings timing. Investors should monitor whether debt continues to rise faster than EBITDA, as that trend would erode the current cushion.
Peer Premium Rests on Unverified Earnings Quality
Viewed skeptically, VNOM's 10.62 price-to-sales ratio against BSM's 2.70 price-to-book and DMLP's 4.26 suggests the market is paying for growth that the reported net margin has not yet confirmed.
The market may be capitalizing acquisition-driven revenue growth at a premium that assumes durable margins, while reported net losses in recent quarters argue against that assumption. Dorchester Minerals' 37.5% net margin and BSM's 71.0% contrast with VNOM's volatile figures, and the gap may reflect structural differences in acquisition accounting rather than operating quality. Price-to-sales is the most commonly misapplied metric for a royalty vehicle, because it ignores the depletion and non-cash charges that determine true cash yield; distributable cash flow yield is a more appropriate anchor.