Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 7.9x · EV/EBITDA 6.6x · ROE 8.9%. (1996–2025 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 | $1.1B | $667M | $512M | $656M | $477M | $142M | $404M | $1.1B | $232M | $331M | $1.3B |
| Enterprise Value | $2.7B | $2.3B | $1.9B | $1.9B | $1.8B | $1.5B | $1.8B | $2.5B | $1.6B | $1.9B | $2.8B |
| P/E Ratio → | 7.95 | 5.04 | 3.45 | 2.46 | 2.82 | — | — | 72.67 | — | 43.44 | 22.99 |
| P/S Ratio | 1.33 | 0.83 | 0.64 | 0.74 | 0.55 | 0.26 | 0.63 | 1.84 | 0.44 | 0.63 | 2.65 |
| P/B Ratio | 0.56 | 0.36 | 0.29 | 0.40 | 0.31 | 0.11 | 0.29 | 0.75 | 0.15 | 0.22 | 0.90 |
| P/FCF | — | — | — | 6.77 | — | — | 23.54 | — | 4.43 | — | — |
| P/OCF | 3.60 | 2.25 | 1.66 | 1.66 | 1.65 | 2.68 | 1.97 | 2.47 | 3.33 | 1.98 | 7.80 |
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 | — | 2.87 | 2.40 | 2.11 | 2.13 | 2.70 | 2.79 | 4.11 | 3.03 | 3.55 | 5.88 |
| EV / EBITDA | 6.55 | 5.58 | 4.61 | 3.51 | 4.86 | 212.13 | 7.70 | 9.72 | 8.69 | 8.73 | 13.95 |
| EV / EBIT | 11.18 | 9.52 | 6.54 | 4.57 | 7.35 | — | 22.25 | 27.90 | — | 24.94 | 29.58 |
| EV / FCF | — | — | — | 19.41 | — | — | 104.80 | — | 30.70 | — | — |
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 | 35.4% | 35.4% | 34.2% | 41.6% | 33.3% | 0.3% | 25.0% | 23.6% | 12.3% | 19.4% | 24.0% |
| Operating Margin | 30.1% | 30.1% | 34.6% | 44.0% | 29.8% | -21.9% | 15.0% | 19.0% | 7.2% | 14.4% | 18.6% |
| Net Profit Margin | 20.1% | 20.1% | 21.9% | 33.7% | 23.7% | -27.7% | 3.7% | 2.5% | -18.7% | 1.4% | 11.6% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 8.9% | 8.9% | 10.3% | 18.9% | 14.5% | -11.3% | 1.7% | 1.0% | -6.6% | 0.5% | 3.9% |
| ROA | 4.2% | 4.2% | 5.0% | 9.0% | 6.6% | -5.0% | 0.8% | 0.5% | -3.0% | 0.2% | 1.8% |
| ROIC | 5.4% | 5.4% | 6.9% | 10.2% | 7.0% | -3.3% | 2.6% | 3.0% | 1.0% | 1.9% | 2.5% |
| ROCE | 7.1% | 7.1% | 8.8% | 13.1% | 9.3% | -4.5% | 3.5% | 3.9% | 1.3% | 2.6% | 3.3% |
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 | 1.04 | 1.04 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 1.10 | 1.13 | 1.13 | 1.06 | 1.06 | 1.16 | 1.24 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 4.70 | 4.70 | 4.22 | 2.99 | 4.41 | 209.96 | 6.70 | 6.16 | 8.63 | 8.14 | 8.63 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 0.87 | 0.80 | 0.74 | 0.89 | 1.03 | 1.01 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 1.03 | 1.10 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 3.96 | 3.96 | 3.38 | 2.29 | 3.59 | 191.69 | 5.97 | 5.37 | 7.43 | 7.20 | 7.66 |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | 12.64 | — | — | 81.26 | — | 26.28 | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | 2.47 | 2.47 | 2.60 | 3.87 | 4.17 | -0.66 | 1.51 | 1.19 | -0.32 | 1.14 | 2.44 |
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 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 1.10 | 1.57 | 1.38 | 0.72 | 0.84 | 1.12 | 1.25 | 0.90 | 0.91 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.92 | 0.92 | 1.06 | 1.50 | 1.31 | 0.65 | 0.78 | 1.08 | 1.17 | 0.85 | 0.86 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.85 | 1.17 | 0.84 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 0.56 | 0.87 | 0.61 | 0.51 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.20 | 0.22 | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.15 |
| Inventory Turnover | 40.97 | 40.97 | 27.91 | 23.08 | 21.88 | 23.77 | 22.15 | 35.03 | 22.79 | 26.18 | 19.53 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 24.61 | 15.28 | 21.33 | 36.94 | 38.74 | 26.10 | 36.93 | 38.76 | 28.68 | 34.08 |
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% | 9.0% | 14.0% | 9.4% | 9.2% | 25.5% | 11.6% | 4.5% | 19.2% | 12.0% | 3.2% |
| Payout Ratio | 37.4% | 37.4% | 40.8% | 20.6% | 21.4% | — | 194.6% | 326.0% | — | 523.8% | 72.3% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | 12.6% | 19.8% | 29.0% | 40.7% | 35.5% | — | — | 1.4% | — | 2.3% | 4.3% |
| FCF Yield | — | — | — | 14.8% | — | — | 4.2% | — | 22.6% | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 16.5% | 0.5% | 0.1% | 14.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.6% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 5.7% | 9.0% | 14.0% | 26.0% | 9.7% | 25.6% | 26.3% | 4.5% | 19.2% | 12.0% | 4.8% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $30M | $30M | $30M | $28M | $20M | $50M | $50M | $17M | $17M | $55M |
Fleet renewal capital intensity
Based on current market data, TEN trades at a P/B of 0.59 and a forward P/E of 4.97, suggesting that investors are applying a significant conglomerate discount compared to pure-play tanker peers, likely due to the company's complex corporate structure and related-party management fee arrangements.
The valuation gap relative to peers like Teekay Tankers suggests the market remains skeptical of the company's governance and capital allocation efficiency. While the forward P/E appears attractive, it may imply that the market anticipates a cyclical peak in earnings rather than a sustainable long-term growth trajectory.
According to reported financial statements, TEN's ROIC has remained in a narrow range between 1.0% and 2.5% over the last ten quarters, indicating that the company's aggressive fleet renewal program is currently diluting the efficiency of capital deployed into new, high-spec vessel assets.
The low ROIC relative to the cost of capital suggests that the company is struggling to generate meaningful economic value-add from its recent investments. Investors should monitor whether the transition to dual-fuel vessels eventually improves margins enough to offset the heavy upfront capital burden.
As reported in recent filings, TEN's cash conversion cycle has fluctuated significantly, swinging from a negative 10 days in 2024Q4 to zero in 2025Q4, which highlights the inherent difficulty in managing working capital across a diverse fleet of spot-exposed and long-term chartered vessels.
The variability in DSO and DPO suggests that the company's ability to extract cash from operations is highly dependent on the specific charter mix at any given time. This lack of consistency in working capital management warrants further investigation into the underlying credit terms with major charterers.
Based on reported figures, TEN maintains a debt-to-equity ratio of 1.04, which appears deceptively stable; however, the interest coverage ratio has declined from 3.76 in 2025Q4 to 1.79 in 2024Q4, indicating that debt service capacity is becoming increasingly sensitive to fluctuations in operating income.
While the headline leverage ratio appears manageable, the declining interest coverage suggests that the company's margin of safety is narrowing. Investors should be wary that this leverage profile may not fully account for off-balance sheet lease liabilities common in the maritime industry.
The P/E ratio is frequently misapplied to TEN, as it fails to account for the lumpy nature of vessel depreciation and non-recurring gains on asset sales, which can artificially inflate or deflate earnings and obscure the company's true underlying cash-generating capacity.
Analysts should prioritize EV/EBITDA or Price-to-NAV metrics, as these provide a more accurate reflection of the company's asset-heavy business model. Relying on P/E ignores the significant non-cash charges that characterize the shipping industry and can lead to flawed conclusions regarding the company's valuation.
Includes 30+ ratios · 30 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 TEN stock.
Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited's current P/E ratio is 7.9x. The historical average is 32.6x. This places it at the 31th percentile of its historical range.
Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited's current EV/EBITDA is 6.6x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 9.1x.
Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited's return on equity (ROE) is 8.9%. The historical average is 3.4%.
Based on historical data, Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited is trading at a P/E of 7.9x. This is at the 31th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited's current dividend yield is 5.72% with a payout ratio of 37.4%.
Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited has 35.4% gross margin and 30.1% operating margin. Operating margin above 20% indicates strong pricing power and cost efficiency.
Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited's Debt/EBITDA ratio is 4.7x, indicating high leverage. A ratio above 4x may signal elevated financial risk.