Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 2.1x · EV/EBITDA 3.4x · ROE 12.9%. (2011–2025 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 | $130M | $138M | $200M | $103M | $96M | $105M | $89M | $75M | $120M | $375M | $328M |
| Enterprise Value | $366M | $374M | $453M | $449M | $591M | $620M | $672M | $712M | $723M | $1.0B | $987M |
| P/E Ratio → | 2.11 | 2.23 | 5.18 | 4.24 | 2.28 | 2.54 | 3.97 | — | 33.70 | 40.22 | 9.46 |
| P/S Ratio | 0.83 | 0.88 | 1.28 | 0.64 | 0.73 | 0.77 | 0.65 | 0.57 | 0.94 | 2.70 | 1.93 |
| P/B Ratio | 0.28 | 0.29 | 0.41 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.28 | 0.26 | 0.24 | 0.37 | 1.18 | 0.89 |
| P/FCF | — | — | 2.17 | 1.71 | 1.80 | 1.33 | 1.30 | 1.73 | 2.81 | 6.32 | 4.95 |
| P/OCF | 1.44 | 1.53 | 2.17 | 1.60 | 1.68 | 1.33 | 1.30 | 1.73 | 2.78 | 6.32 | 3.16 |
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 | — | 2.39 | 2.89 | 2.80 | 4.49 | 4.50 | 4.90 | 5.44 | 5.68 | 7.35 | 5.81 |
| EV / EBITDA | 3.40 | 3.47 | 4.13 | 4.64 | 7.66 | 6.44 | 6.99 | 7.86 | 8.67 | 10.84 | 7.45 |
| EV / EBIT | 4.86 | 4.96 | 5.55 | 6.13 | 7.42 | 8.61 | 11.54 | 14.17 | 14.31 | 17.90 | 9.89 |
| EV / FCF | — | — | 4.91 | 7.46 | 11.01 | 7.80 | 9.79 | 16.49 | 16.97 | 17.22 | 14.91 |
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 | 53.6% | 53.6% | 55.1% | 45.6% | 41.3% | 53.5% | 53.6% | 52.8% | 48.4% | 51.7% | 64.7% |
| Operating Margin | 48.1% | 48.1% | 49.5% | 40.3% | 34.4% | 46.9% | 46.9% | 45.8% | 41.7% | 46.0% | 60.1% |
| Net Profit Margin | 39.4% | 39.4% | 33.0% | 22.4% | 41.0% | 38.7% | 24.8% | 2.8% | 2.8% | 12.5% | 39.4% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 12.9% | 12.9% | 11.1% | 8.2% | 13.4% | 14.8% | 10.5% | 1.1% | 1.1% | 5.1% | 18.2% |
| ROA | 7.5% | 7.5% | 5.9% | 3.9% | 5.6% | 5.5% | 3.5% | 0.4% | 0.3% | 1.6% | 6.0% |
| ROIC | 7.8% | 7.8% | 7.6% | 5.8% | 3.8% | 5.3% | 5.2% | 4.8% | 4.2% | 4.8% | 7.5% |
| ROCE | 10.2% | 10.2% | 12.8% | 9.7% | 5.1% | 7.2% | 7.0% | 7.0% | 5.8% | 6.1% | 9.7% |
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 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.66 | 0.94 | 1.17 | 1.47 | 1.81 | 2.08 | 2.18 | 2.24 | 1.95 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 2.57 | 2.57 | 2.93 | 4.34 | 6.44 | 5.83 | 6.33 | 7.21 | 8.56 | 7.58 | 5.41 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 0.50 | 0.52 | 0.77 | 1.17 | 1.35 | 1.73 | 2.03 | 1.85 | 2.03 | 1.79 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 2.19 | 2.19 | 2.31 | 3.58 | 6.41 | 5.35 | 6.07 | 7.03 | 7.24 | 6.86 | 4.97 |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | 2.74 | 5.75 | 9.21 | 6.47 | 8.49 | 14.75 | 14.16 | 10.90 | 9.96 |
| Interest Coverage | 3.76 | 3.76 | 2.72 | 1.87 | 2.85 | 3.36 | 2.15 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 1.23 | 2.85 |
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 | 0.52 | 0.52 | 0.93 | 0.23 | 1.06 | 0.79 | 0.43 | 0.28 | 0.41 | 3.07 | 1.13 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.92 | 0.23 | 1.04 | 0.77 | 0.42 | 0.27 | 0.41 | 3.04 | 1.12 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.52 | 0.52 | 0.81 | 0.16 | 0.69 | 0.73 | 0.40 | 0.25 | 0.40 | 2.95 | 1.09 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.15 |
| Inventory Turnover | 60.41 | 60.41 | 78.57 | 116.31 | 87.38 | 70.41 | 78.74 | 85.99 | 53.77 | 84.10 | 71.81 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 5.48 | 11.89 | 15.44 | 0.19 | 0.24 | 1.02 | 0.40 | 0.14 | 0.41 | 0.21 |
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 | 12.9% | 12.3% | 7.4% | 11.2% | 12.0% | 11.0% | 13.0% | 21.9% | 40.5% | 17.8% | 20.4% |
| Payout Ratio | 27.4% | 27.4% | 28.7% | 32.2% | 21.4% | 21.7% | — | 453.7% | 1340.2% | 385.6% | 100.0% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | 47.3% | 44.8% | 19.3% | 23.6% | 43.9% | 39.4% | 25.2% | — | 3.0% | 2.5% | 10.6% |
| FCF Yield | — | — | 46.0% | 58.4% | 55.7% | 75.4% | 77.2% | 57.7% | 35.6% | 15.8% | 20.2% |
| Buyback Yield | 1.0% | 1.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 14.0% | 13.2% | 7.5% | 11.2% | 12.0% | 11.0% | 13.0% | 22.1% | 40.5% | 17.8% | 20.4% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $37M | $37M | $37M | $37M | $37M | $36M | $35M | $35M | $35M | $21M |
Geopolitical counterparty concentration risk
According to current market data, DLNG trades at a forward P/E of 2.90 and an EV/EBITDA of 3.30, suggesting that investors are applying a significant complexity discount compared to peers like Flex LNG, which commands a forward P/E exceeding 20 times earnings.
The valuation gap appears to be driven by market skepticism regarding the long-term utility of the partnership's older steam-turbine fleet and its concentrated exposure to specific sub-arctic energy projects. This pricing suggests the market is discounting the durability of cash flows, potentially ignoring the specialized nature of the ice-class vessels that may be difficult to replace.
As reported in financial statements, DLNG maintains a robust net margin of 39.36%, which, when compared to the broader energy midstream sector, highlights the premium pricing power derived from its specialized ice-class fleet and long-term, fixed-rate time charter contracts.
The stability of these margins suggests that the partnership has successfully insulated its bottom line from the volatility of spot market charter rates. Investors should monitor whether future contract renewals can maintain these levels, as the current margin profile is heavily dependent on the original terms of its long-term infrastructure-linked agreements.
Based on reported figures, DLNG's ROIC has remained relatively stagnant, hovering near 1.8% to 2.0% over the last ten quarters, indicating that the partnership is struggling to compound returns on its invested capital despite its lean operating structure.
This low return on capital appears to be a function of the heavy depreciation charges associated with its aging vessel fleet, which suppresses the numerator in return calculations. While the partnership is effectively managing its debt, the lack of growth in ROIC suggests that capital allocation is currently focused on preservation rather than value-accretive expansion.
As indicated by the partnership's reported financial data, the cash conversion cycle has shown significant volatility, yet the DSO remains consistently low at approximately 4 to 11 days, reflecting the highly efficient payment terms typical of long-term contracts with major energy counterparties.
The minimal reliance on working capital highlights the partnership's role as a stable infrastructure provider rather than a traditional shipping operator. This efficiency suggests that the partnership faces little risk of liquidity strain from its customer base, provided the underlying energy projects remain operational and solvent.
The P/E ratio is frequently misapplied to DLNG, as it fails to account for the massive non-cash depreciation charges inherent in the partnership's specialized maritime asset base, which significantly distorts the perceived earnings power of the business model.
Investors should prioritize EV/EBITDA or cash flow-based metrics to better understand the partnership's true economic performance. Relying on P/E ratios may lead to an inaccurate assessment of the company's valuation, as it ignores the substantial cash-generating capacity that is masked by accounting-driven depreciation of its long-lived vessel assets.
Includes 30+ ratios · 15 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 DLNG stock.
Dynagas LNG Partners LP's current P/E ratio is 2.1x. The historical average is 10.7x.
Dynagas LNG Partners LP's current EV/EBITDA is 3.4x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 7.3x.
Dynagas LNG Partners LP's return on equity (ROE) is 12.9%. The historical average is 16.7%.
Based on historical data, Dynagas LNG Partners LP is trading at a P/E of 2.1x. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Dynagas LNG Partners LP's current dividend yield is 12.94% with a payout ratio of 27.4%.
Dynagas LNG Partners LP has 53.6% gross margin and 48.1% operating margin. Operating margin above 20% indicates strong pricing power and cost efficiency.
Dynagas LNG Partners LP's Debt/EBITDA ratio is 2.6x, indicating moderate leverage. A ratio between 2-4x is manageable but warrants monitoring.