Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 28.9x · EV/EBITDA 6.2x · ROE 4.3%. (2015–2025 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 | $373M | $317M | $354M | $256M | $257M | $139M | $31M | $56M | $44M | $78M | — |
| Enterprise Value | $405M | $349M | $347M | $274M | $304M | $207M | $62M | $104M | $112M | $89M | — |
| P/E Ratio → | 28.89 | 25.89 | 19.11 | 10.77 | 16.94 | — | — | 12.63 | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | 0.68 | 0.58 | 0.62 | 0.40 | 0.42 | 0.47 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.50 | — |
| P/B Ratio | 1.18 | 1.06 | 1.29 | 0.94 | 0.97 | 0.56 | 0.17 | 0.27 | 0.23 | 0.40 | — |
| P/FCF | 8.69 | 7.39 | 7.02 | 4.71 | 8.38 | — | 1.70 | 2.01 | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | 5.41 | 4.59 | 4.19 | 2.82 | 5.78 | — | 1.22 | 1.07 | 1.58 | — | — |
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 | — | 0.64 | 0.61 | 0.43 | 0.50 | 0.71 | 0.33 | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.58 | — |
| EV / EBITDA | 6.22 | 5.36 | 4.77 | 3.57 | 4.74 | 6.21 | 3.10 | 2.21 | 3.99 | — | — |
| EV / EBIT | 21.64 | 18.64 | 12.12 | 7.94 | 13.05 | — | — | 8.41 | — | — | — |
| EV / FCF | — | 8.13 | 6.88 | 5.04 | 9.90 | — | 3.37 | 3.77 | — | — | — |
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 | 8.0% | 8.0% | 9.5% | 10.2% | 9.9% | -2.4% | 2.6% | 11.6% | 11.8% | 6.4% | 13.1% |
| Operating Margin | 3.4% | 3.4% | 5.0% | 5.8% | 3.2% | -1.2% | -8.0% | 3.7% | -0.7% | -13.4% | -8.5% |
| Net Profit Margin | 2.2% | 2.2% | 3.2% | 3.7% | 2.5% | -0.7% | -8.4% | 1.3% | -1.1% | -4.3% | -9.5% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 4.3% | 4.3% | 6.7% | 8.8% | 5.9% | -1.0% | -8.1% | 2.2% | -1.7% | -4.3% | -6.5% |
| ROA | 3.1% | 3.1% | 4.8% | 6.3% | 3.9% | -0.7% | -5.9% | 1.5% | -1.2% | -3.3% | -5.3% |
| ROIC | 4.7% | 4.7% | 7.7% | 9.2% | 4.7% | -1.0% | -4.8% | 3.6% | -0.7% | -9.3% | -3.9% |
| ROCE | 5.6% | 5.6% | 9.1% | 12.0% | 6.6% | -1.4% | -6.8% | 5.1% | -0.9% | -12.5% | -5.2% |
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 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.27 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.37 | 0.08 | 0.11 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.46 | 0.44 | 0.79 | 2.05 | 1.68 | 1.18 | 2.54 | — | 6.14 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 0.11 | -0.03 | 0.07 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.17 | 0.24 | 0.36 | 0.06 | 0.10 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 0.49 | 0.49 | -0.10 | 0.24 | 0.73 | 2.03 | 1.54 | 1.03 | 2.44 | — | 5.38 |
| Debt / FCF | — | 0.74 | -0.14 | 0.34 | 1.52 | — | 1.68 | 1.76 | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | 15.58 | 15.58 | 11.00 | 9.86 | 3.19 | -0.66 | -4.44 | 2.14 | -0.57 | -3.27 | -9.00 |
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 | 1.75 | 1.75 | 2.21 | 1.96 | 1.88 | 1.02 | 1.08 | 1.07 | 1.04 | 0.94 | 1.87 |
| Quick Ratio | 1.71 | 1.71 | 2.12 | 1.87 | 1.80 | 1.00 | 1.01 | 1.00 | 0.95 | 0.88 | 1.61 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.63 | 0.23 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.13 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 1.30 | 1.50 | 1.68 | 1.59 | 0.75 | 0.78 | 1.15 | 1.00 | 0.59 | 0.39 |
| Inventory Turnover | 162.23 | 162.23 | 90.68 | 89.31 | 92.93 | 120.04 | 79.52 | 78.37 | 54.53 | 42.41 | 14.34 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 63.40 | 54.39 | 59.11 | 70.84 | 116.81 | 52.48 | 46.26 | 58.40 | 90.30 | 100.93 |
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 | 1.6% | 1.7% | 1.3% | 0.9% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Payout Ratio | 44.7% | 44.7% | 24.5% | 10.1% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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% | 3.9% | 5.2% | 9.3% | 5.9% | — | — | 7.9% | — | — | — |
| FCF Yield | 11.5% | 13.5% | 14.2% | 21.2% | 11.9% | — | 58.9% | 49.8% | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 3.3% | 3.8% | 4.4% | 7.9% | 0.5% | 0.9% | 10.9% | 2.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 4.8% | 5.6% | 5.7% | 8.9% | 0.5% | 0.9% | 10.9% | 2.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $23M | $23M | $25M | $23M | $14M | $9M | $9M | $8M | $8M | $7M |
Cyclical Margin Compression Risk
According to current market data, Ranger trades at a forward P/E of 14.37, which appears to discount the volatility of its service-based revenue model compared to the broader energy sector, suggesting investors remain cautious about the sustainability of earnings in a fluctuating US onshore drilling environment.
The current EV/EBITDA multiple of 6.28 indicates that the market is pricing the company as a mature, cyclical service provider rather than a growth-oriented entity. This valuation level warrants investigation, as it may imply that the market expects further margin compression if E&P capital discipline continues to limit demand for high-spec rig services.
Based on reported figures, ROIC has struggled to gain traction, peaking at only 3.5% in 2024Q3 before declining to 1.2% in 2026Q1, which suggests that the company's heavy investment in high-spec assets is not currently generating returns that exceed the typical cost of capital for oilfield services.
The persistent inability to drive ROIC above low single digits indicates that the competitive intensity of the well service market prevents the company from capturing the full value of its technical fleet advantages. Investors should monitor whether management can improve asset utilization rates, as current returns appear insufficient to justify significant long-term capital expansion.
As reported in financial statements, the company's DSO has fluctuated between 55 and 69 days over the last ten quarters, reflecting the inherent difficulty in managing customer payment cycles within the highly fragmented and competitive US onshore oilfield services market during periods of industry-wide capital tightening.
The variability in DSO suggests that Ranger lacks the pricing power to enforce stricter payment terms, potentially exposing the company to credit risk from smaller E&P operators. The lack of consistent data for DIO and DPO further complicates the assessment of the cash conversion cycle, implying that working capital efficiency remains a secondary priority to operational survival.
Based on the company's reported figures, Ranger maintains a disciplined capital structure with a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.05 as of 2026Q1, which stands in stark contrast to more levered industry peers and provides a critical buffer against the inherent volatility of the US onshore energy sector.
This low leverage profile is a key differentiator that limits interest expense contagion during cyclical downturns, allowing the company to avoid the restructuring risks seen in more indebted competitors. However, the low debt levels also suggest that the company may be limited in its ability to fund aggressive growth through debt, forcing reliance on internal cash flows that are currently under pressure.
The P/E ratio is frequently misapplied to Ranger because it ignores the significant gap between reported net income and actual free cash flow, which has been severely impacted by the high capital intensity required to maintain the company's specialized high-spec rig fleet in a competitive market.
Analysts should prioritize P/FCF or EV/EBITDA over P/E, as the latter is distorted by non-cash charges and the lumpy nature of capital expenditures. Relying on P/E may lead to an overestimation of the company's ability to return capital to shareholders, given the ongoing need to reinvest in fleet maintenance to remain relevant.
Includes 30+ ratios · 11 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 RNGR stock.
Ranger Energy Services, Inc.'s current P/E ratio is 28.9x. The historical average is 17.1x. This places it at the 100th percentile of its historical range.
Ranger Energy Services, Inc.'s current EV/EBITDA is 6.2x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 4.2x.
Ranger Energy Services, Inc.'s return on equity (ROE) is 4.3%. The historical average is -0.9%.
Based on historical data, Ranger Energy Services, Inc. is trading at a P/E of 28.9x. This is at the 100th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Ranger Energy Services, Inc.'s current dividend yield is 1.55% with a payout ratio of 44.7%.
Ranger Energy Services, Inc. has 8.0% gross margin and 3.4% operating margin.
Ranger Energy Services, Inc.'s Debt/EBITDA ratio is 0.6x, indicating low leverage. A ratio below 2x is generally considered financially healthy.