Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -6.6x · EV/EBITDA 6.4x · ROE N/A. (1999–2025 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 | $96M | $102M | $139M | $93M | $116M | $103M | $55M | $156M | $400M | $534M | $649M |
| Enterprise Value | $620M | $626M | $645M | $575M | $664M | $625M | $589M | $755M | $1.1B | $1.3B | $1.5B |
| P/E Ratio → | -6.62 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 9.26 | 31.82 | 28.23 |
| P/S Ratio | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.20 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.08 | 0.18 | 0.41 | 0.56 | 0.78 |
| P/B Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1.39 | 1.79 | 2.08 |
| P/FCF | 6.84 | 7.26 | 21.98 | 0.90 | — | 5.23 | 1.53 | 3.45 | 7.46 | 19.25 | 9.22 |
| P/OCF | 2.07 | 2.20 | 2.88 | 0.68 | 7.19 | 2.88 | 0.85 | 2.05 | 4.41 | 7.92 | 5.86 |
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 | — | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.72 | 0.65 | 0.71 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 1.09 | 1.42 | 1.76 |
| EV / EBITDA | 6.39 | 6.45 | 5.96 | 4.99 | 6.18 | 5.48 | 5.46 | 6.39 | 9.94 | 9.29 | 8.84 |
| EV / EBIT | 13.24 | 13.10 | 11.57 | 9.32 | 12.96 | 10.91 | 14.31 | 12.99 | 23.43 | 27.91 | 18.28 |
| EV / FCF | — | 44.76 | 101.62 | 5.57 | — | 31.75 | 16.30 | 16.70 | 19.69 | 48.53 | 20.70 |
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 | 12.4% | 12.4% | 50.8% | 13.3% | 33.3% | 33.2% | 37.8% | 34.7% | 21.7% | 26.1% | 31.9% |
| Operating Margin | 6.5% | 6.5% | 8.1% | 8.2% | 5.0% | 6.5% | 6.9% | 6.9% | 4.6% | 6.3% | 8.8% |
| Net Profit Margin | -2.0% | -2.0% | -0.7% | -0.6% | -1.0% | -0.0% | -1.0% | -20.7% | 5.7% | 2.1% | 3.8% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | -138.7% | 19.0% | 6.5% | 9.0% |
| ROA | -2.7% | -2.7% | -1.0% | -0.8% | -1.8% | -0.0% | -1.1% | -20.6% | 4.9% | 1.6% | 2.4% |
| ROIC | 8.0% | 8.0% | 10.1% | 10.8% | 8.0% | 8.9% | 6.6% | 5.7% | 3.2% | 4.0% | 4.6% |
| ROCE | 11.4% | 11.4% | 13.8% | 14.6% | 10.6% | 12.2% | 9.1% | 7.8% | 4.4% | 5.3% | 6.1% |
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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2.32 | 2.72 | 2.59 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 5.41 | 5.41 | 4.67 | 4.18 | 5.10 | 4.58 | 4.99 | 5.09 | 6.29 | 5.60 | 4.90 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2.28 | 2.72 | 2.59 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 5.41 | 5.41 | 4.67 | 4.18 | 5.10 | 4.58 | 4.95 | 5.07 | 6.18 | 5.60 | 4.90 |
| Debt / FCF | — | 37.51 | 79.64 | 4.67 | — | 26.52 | 14.77 | 13.25 | 12.23 | 29.28 | 11.48 |
| Interest Coverage | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.97 | 1.02 | 0.96 | 1.06 | 0.89 | 1.12 | 0.86 | 0.99 | 1.68 |
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 | 1.05 | 1.05 | 1.13 | 1.14 | 1.90 | 1.67 | 1.14 | 1.69 | 1.91 | 1.81 | 1.65 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.91 | 1.07 | 0.68 | 1.11 | 1.07 | 1.08 | 0.95 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 1.37 | 1.31 | 1.57 | 1.70 | 1.52 | 1.16 | 1.27 | 0.94 | 0.75 | 0.66 |
| Inventory Turnover | 12.48 | 12.48 | 6.73 | 15.79 | 6.19 | 9.50 | 7.73 | 8.84 | 8.95 | 7.19 | 6.82 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 29.75 | 34.70 | 28.00 | 31.40 | 40.79 | 36.69 | 45.28 | 31.39 | 50.51 | 40.71 |
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 | 0.8% | 0.8% | 0.6% | 0.9% | 0.7% | 0.8% | 9.6% | 31.5% | 19.2% | 14.4% | 16.0% |
| Payout Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 138.1% | 386.3% | 329.0% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 10.8% | 3.1% | 3.5% |
| FCF Yield | 14.6% | 13.8% | 4.6% | 110.9% | — | 19.1% | 65.4% | 29.0% | 13.4% | 5.2% | 10.8% |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.1% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.8% | 0.8% | 0.6% | 0.9% | 0.7% | 0.8% | 9.6% | 31.8% | 19.3% | 14.4% | 16.1% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $39M | $39M | $39M | $39M | $39M | $39M | $39M | $39M | $38M | $35M |
Liquidity and solvency constraints
According to recent market data, MMLP trades at an EV/EBITDA multiple of 6.26x, which appears to discount the partnership's persistent net losses and limited liquidity compared to peers like Genesis Energy, suggesting investors are pricing in significant execution risk regarding the partnership's long-term capital structure viability.
The current valuation multiples suggest that the market is heavily discounting MMLP's assets due to the lack of consistent earnings growth and the high leverage profile. Investors should monitor whether the current P/S ratio of 0.12 indicates a deep value opportunity or a structural trap where the partnership's specialized infrastructure cannot generate sufficient returns to justify its debt burden.
Based on reported figures, MMLP's ROIC has struggled to maintain momentum, fluctuating between 1.1% and 3.4% over the last ten quarters, which indicates that the partnership is failing to generate returns on invested capital that exceed its likely cost of capital in the current interest rate environment.
The low and volatile ROIC suggests that the partnership's heavy investment in specialized sulfur and logistics assets is not yielding the expected operational efficiency. This trend warrants further investigation into whether the aging fleet requires excessive maintenance capital that continuously drags down the overall return profile of the business.
As reported in financial statements, MMLP's cash conversion cycle has shown significant variability, ranging from 15 to 30 days, which highlights the partnership's sensitivity to inventory management and the timing of receivables within its NGL and sulfur services segments across the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The fluctuation in the CCC suggests that the partnership lacks tight control over its working capital, which is particularly concerning given the extremely low cash position. Investors should monitor whether these swings in DSO and DIO are indicative of deteriorating customer credit quality or seasonal bottlenecks in the logistics chain.
Data from recent filings indicates a highly vulnerable liquidity position, with cash balances consistently reported at a nominal $49,000, suggesting that the partnership is operating with virtually no margin for error and remains entirely dependent on revolving credit facilities to meet its immediate operational obligations.
The current ratio hovering near 1.2x provides a false sense of security, as the lack of actual cash reserves leaves the partnership exposed to any sudden disruption in credit access or unexpected operational costs. This liquidity profile appears to be the primary driver of the partnership's conservative capital allocation and recent focus on deleveraging.
As indicated by the partnership's financial disclosures, the most commonly misapplied metric for MMLP is the standard Distributable Cash Flow (DCF), which often obscures the impact of necessary maintenance CapEx required to sustain the aging marine and trucking fleet in a capital-intensive midstream environment.
Relying solely on DCF can lead to an overestimation of the partnership's ability to return capital to unitholders, as it frequently ignores the recurring, non-discretionary nature of sustaining capital expenditures. Analysts should instead focus on Free Cash Flow after all maintenance CapEx to better understand the true cash-generating capacity of the underlying assets.
Includes 30+ ratios · 27 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 MMLP stock.
Martin Midstream Partners L.P.'s current P/E ratio is -6.6x. The historical average is 26.0x.
Martin Midstream Partners L.P.'s current EV/EBITDA is 6.4x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 10.2x.
Based on historical data, Martin Midstream Partners L.P. is trading at a P/E of -6.6x. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Martin Midstream Partners L.P.'s current dividend yield is 0.84%.
Martin Midstream Partners L.P. has 12.4% gross margin and 6.5% operating margin.
Martin Midstream Partners L.P.'s Debt/EBITDA ratio is 5.4x, indicating high leverage. A ratio above 4x may signal elevated financial risk.