Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -0.1x · EV/EBITDA N/A · ROE -106.6%. (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 | $512711 | $1M | $18M | $22M | $79M | $288M | $87M | $218M | $257M | $256M | $300M |
| Enterprise Value | $-123289 | $-2655086 | $17M | $19M | $76M | $280M | $79M | $216M | $256M | $251M | $300M |
| P/E Ratio → | -0.14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | 0.20 | 0.57 | 6.85 | 9.70 | 104.66 | 169.83 | 138.93 | 410.46 | 807.73 | 1069.23 | 1310.74 |
| P/B Ratio | 0.82 | 0.04 | 27.93 | 5.55 | 24.34 | 45.60 | 36.15 | 161.38 | 554.77 | 70.32 | — |
| 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 | — | -1.04 | 6.60 | 8.26 | 101.16 | 165.29 | 127.52 | 407.94 | 804.92 | 1050.99 | 1310.28 |
| 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 | 6.0% | 6.0% | 59.0% | 67.3% | 22.2% | 45.4% | 34.3% | 53.0% | 50.3% | 63.2% | 61.6% |
| Operating Margin | -896.6% | -896.6% | -140.0% | -150.5% | -666.5% | -335.3% | -757.5% | -971.9% | -1353.1% | -1293.3% | -1011.4% |
| Net Profit Margin | -712.3% | -712.3% | -144.8% | -162.5% | -724.5% | -842.6% | -694.4% | -1093.2% | -1306.3% | -2077.4% | -1236.2% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -106.6% | -106.6% | -160.6% | -102.8% | -114.1% | -328.1% | -231.2% | -639.9% | -202.8% | -874.9% | — |
| ROA | -81.3% | -81.3% | -71.9% | -59.1% | -75.1% | -169.5% | -84.3% | -320.5% | -128.9% | -185.3% | -228.6% |
| ROIC | -116.9% | -116.9% | -766.5% | -393.1% | -625.5% | — | — | -38632.5% | — | — | — |
| ROCE | -129.4% | -129.4% | -139.7% | -88.3% | -97.5% | -94.4% | -135.7% | -401.3% | -171.8% | -154.7% | -286.8% |
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 | 0.19 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | — | — | — | — |
| Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | -0.12 | -1.01 | -0.82 | -0.81 | -1.22 | -2.97 | -0.99 | -1.94 | -1.20 | — |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | — | — | -27.30 | -14.42 | -15.60 | — | -28.33 | -92.73 | -194.59 | -2.95 | -179.93 |
Net cash position: cash ($4M) exceeds total debt ($117000)
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 | 1.09 | 1.09 | 1.22 | 2.64 | 2.42 | 4.38 | 2.75 | 4.49 | 1.92 | 5.67 | 0.39 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.42 | 1.53 | 1.48 | 4.29 | 2.70 | 4.20 | 1.69 | 5.57 | 0.27 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.28 | 1.34 | 1.17 | 4.07 | 2.46 | 3.27 | 1.40 | 5.47 | 0.19 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.06 | 0.70 | 0.34 | 0.13 | 0.20 | 0.08 | 0.26 | 0.20 | 0.05 | 0.46 |
| Inventory Turnover | 1.03 | 1.03 | 0.48 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 5.29 | 2.82 | 2.06 | 1.10 | 1.16 | 1.31 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 55.90 | 38.24 | 67.95 | 52.91 | 43.07 | 54.49 | 89.53 | 165.28 | 53.45 | 22.31 |
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% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $628534 | $269848 | $175010 | $141967 | $125814 | $51490 | $34696 | $32242 | $24820 | $22892 |
Unsustainable cash burn rate
Based on current market data, NAOV trades at a price-to-sales ratio of 0.20, which appears to reflect extreme investor skepticism regarding the company's ability to scale its proprietary ultrasound technology into a profitable commercial enterprise given the persistent lack of positive earnings or cash flow generation.
The low P/S multiple suggests the market is pricing the company as a distressed asset rather than a growth-stage medical device firm. Investors should monitor whether this valuation floor holds as the company continues to exhaust its cash reserves without demonstrating a clear path to revenue expansion.
As reported in recent financial statements, the company's gross margin has deteriorated significantly, reaching -8.4% in 2026Q1, which indicates that the cost of producing its medical devices now exceeds the revenue generated, effectively eliminating any potential for gross profit to cover operating expenses.
This negative margin profile is highly atypical for the medical device sector and suggests that the company lacks the pricing power or manufacturing efficiency required to sustain its business model. The inability to maintain positive gross margins warrants further investigation into the company's supply chain costs and product pricing strategy.
According to quarterly filings, the company's cash conversion cycle has become increasingly erratic, with days inventory outstanding reaching 293 days in 2026Q1, suggesting that capital is being trapped in unsold inventory rather than being recycled into productive research or commercial activities.
The high DIO relative to peers indicates a potential mismatch between production volumes and actual market demand for UroShield and PainShield products. This inefficiency exacerbates the company's liquidity constraints, as cash remains tied up in slow-moving stock instead of supporting core operations.
Based on the 2026Q1 balance sheet, the current ratio has compressed to 0.90, a sharp decline from the 2.64 reported in 2023Q4, which indicates that the company's ability to meet its short-term obligations is becoming increasingly precarious as cash reserves are consumed by ongoing operating deficits.
The rapid erosion of the current ratio suggests that the company is approaching a critical liquidity threshold that may necessitate external financing. Investors should monitor the cash burn rate closely, as the current trajectory appears unsustainable without a significant capital injection or a radical improvement in operational efficiency.
Analysts frequently misapply the price-to-sales ratio to NAOV, which obscures the company's underlying structural inability to convert revenue into gross profit, thereby failing to account for the fact that every additional dollar of sales currently contributes to further cash depletion rather than enterprise value creation.
Instead of relying on P/S multiples, investors should focus on the cash burn rate and the path to positive gross margins as the primary indicators of business viability. Using revenue as a proxy for growth in this context is misleading, as it ignores the negative unit economics inherent in the current manufacturing and distribution model.
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 NAOV stock.
NanoVibronix, Inc.'s current P/E ratio is -0.1x. This places it at the 50th percentile of its historical range.
NanoVibronix, Inc.'s return on equity (ROE) is -106.6%. The historical average is -178.0%.
Based on historical data, NanoVibronix, Inc. is trading at a P/E of -0.1x. This is at the 50th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
NanoVibronix, Inc. has 6.0% gross margin and -896.6% operating margin.