Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -3.8x · EV/EBITDA 4.5x · ROE -6.3%. (2009–2024 historical series)
Price-based multiples — how expensive the stock is relative to earnings, sales, book value, and cash flow
| Metric | TTM | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 | FY 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $693M | $1.1B | $945M | $867M | $870M | $230M | $664M | $844M | $2.5B | $3.2B | $1.6B |
| Enterprise Value | $3.2B | $3.6B | $2.7B | $2.0B | $2.3B | $1.4B | $1.8B | $1.8B | $3.2B | $4.5B | $3.0B |
| P/E Ratio → | -3.78 | — | 1.36 | 1.37 | 6.00 | — | — | 2.60 | 4.63 | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | 0.36 | 0.58 | 0.61 | 0.45 | 0.62 | 0.34 | 0.79 | 0.76 | 3.10 | 5.34 | 2.62 |
| P/B Ratio | 0.24 | 0.42 | 0.34 | 0.78 | 1.69 | — | 0.79 | 0.72 | 3.33 | 17.66 | 12.11 |
| P/FCF | — | — | — | 3.57 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | 0.69 | 1.14 | 1.16 | 1.05 | 1.75 | 0.60 | 1.40 | 1.57 | 6.62 | 8.95 | 5.04 |
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 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 | FY 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EV / Revenue | — | 1.87 | 1.73 | 1.02 | 1.62 | 2.04 | 2.18 | 1.61 | 3.93 | 7.55 | 4.91 |
| EV / EBITDA | 4.46 | 5.07 | 2.61 | 1.43 | 2.43 | — | — | 3.15 | 7.84 | 74.70 | — |
| EV / EBIT | — | — | 4.06 | 2.59 | 8.74 | — | — | 4.61 | 5.04 | — | — |
| EV / FCF | — | — | — | 8.07 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Margins and return-on-capital ratios measuring operating efficiency
Full margin charts and quarterly trend are on the Earnings History page
| Metric | TTM | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 | FY 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 31.4% | 31.4% | 73.3% | 62.6% | 54.3% | 21.6% | 37.4% | 41.7% | 42.7% | 28.3% | 1.2% |
| Operating Margin | -1.2% | -1.2% | 36.2% | 55.2% | 51.1% | -127.3% | -48.8% | 31.5% | 30.4% | -14.7% | -407.4% |
| Net Profit Margin | -8.9% | -8.9% | 44.9% | 32.9% | 10.4% | -129.1% | -40.9% | 29.4% | 66.8% | -43.6% | -364.3% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 | FY 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -6.3% | -6.3% | 35.7% | 77.7% | 58.9% | -213.1% | -34.0% | 33.5% | 116.0% | -167.1% | -260.8% |
| ROA | -3.1% | -3.1% | 17.7% | 23.9% | 7.3% | -47.2% | -14.6% | 14.6% | 28.9% | -14.5% | -76.9% |
| ROIC | -0.3% | -0.3% | 12.5% | 38.8% | 35.3% | -41.3% | -14.9% | 14.7% | 12.7% | -4.4% | -76.4% |
| ROCE | -0.5% | -0.5% | 16.3% | 48.9% | 43.6% | -51.6% | -18.9% | 17.6% | 14.9% | -5.5% | -96.8% |
Solvency and debt-coverage ratios — lower is generally safer
| Metric | TTM | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 | FY 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debt / Equity | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.63 | 1.02 | 2.80 | — | 1.43 | 0.84 | 1.03 | 7.50 | 10.77 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 3.55 | 3.55 | 1.71 | 0.83 | 1.55 | — | — | 1.74 | 1.92 | 22.42 | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 0.93 | 0.62 | 0.98 | 2.69 | — | 1.38 | 0.80 | 0.89 | 7.32 | 10.54 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 3.49 | 3.49 | 1.69 | 0.80 | 1.49 | — | — | 1.66 | 1.65 | 21.88 | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | 4.50 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | -0.13 | -0.13 | 3.74 | 8.88 | 6.54 | -8.21 | -6.64 | 6.02 | 2.79 | -0.94 | -23.94 |
Short-term solvency ratios and asset-utilisation metrics
| Metric | TTM | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 | FY 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio | 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.62 | 0.59 | 0.45 | 0.69 | 1.17 | 0.96 | 0.85 | 0.82 | 1.53 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.60 | 0.58 | 0.43 | 0.68 | 1.14 | 0.96 | 0.85 | 0.78 | 1.50 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.40 | 0.17 | 0.14 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.33 | 0.30 | 0.70 | 0.55 | 0.47 | 0.37 | 0.46 | 0.41 | 0.34 | 0.33 |
| Inventory Turnover | 77.45 | 77.45 | 30.07 | 118.41 | 62.71 | 166.08 | 95.62 | — | — | 53.09 | 85.91 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 56.03 | 56.31 | 31.04 | 39.75 | 34.48 | 37.15 | 31.13 | 44.68 | 46.32 | 36.24 |
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 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 | FY 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Payout Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 | FY 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | — | — | 73.5% | 72.8% | 16.7% | — | — | 38.4% | 21.6% | — | — |
| FCF Yield | — | — | — | 28.0% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.5% | 0.3% | 0.0% | 4.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.4% | 11.5% | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.2% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.5% | 0.3% | 0.0% | 4.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.4% | 11.5% | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.2% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $37M | $21M | $17M | $14M | $12M | $12M | $12M | $12M | $11M | $10M |
High leverage and liquidity
Based on current market data, VTLE trades at a forward P/E of 3.98, which, according to recent financial filings, suggests that investors are heavily discounting the company's future earnings potential relative to its Permian peers due to concerns regarding the long-term productivity of its secondary-tier acreage.
The low P/B ratio of 0.24 indicates that the market values the company significantly below its book value, likely reflecting fears of future asset impairments. This valuation gap compared to peers like Matador Resources suggests that the market is pricing in a permanent discount for the company's fragmented asset base and higher leverage profile.
As reported in financial statements, Vital Energy's ROIC has trended into negative territory, reaching -6.4% in 2025Q3, which indicates that the company's aggressive acquisition-led growth strategy is currently failing to generate returns that exceed the cost of the capital deployed to fund these operations.
The consistent decline in ROIC from positive levels in 2023 suggests that the company is struggling to extract value from its secondary-tier Permian assets. This trend warrants further investigation into whether the capital intensity required to maintain production is structurally eroding the firm's ability to compound value for shareholders.
According to recent SEC filings, the company's DSO has expanded to 198 days in 2025Q3, a significant increase from historical levels, which suggests that Vital Energy is facing mounting difficulties in converting its production revenue into actual cash inflows within a reasonable timeframe.
The extended collection cycle, combined with the lack of consistent inventory turnover data, implies that the company's working capital management is under pressure. Investors should monitor whether these inefficiencies are a result of structural shifts in customer payment terms or indicative of broader operational bottlenecks in the Permian.
Based on reported figures, the company's debt-to-equity ratio has climbed to 1.33 as of 2025Q3, which, as noted in recent financial statements, indicates that the firm's reliance on debt financing has intensified even as its equity base remains pressured by ongoing operational losses and limited retained earnings.
The negative interest coverage ratio of -7.25 in the most recent quarter suggests that the company is currently unable to service its debt obligations from operating income alone. This level of leverage leaves the firm highly vulnerable to commodity price volatility and restricts its ability to fund future growth without further dilution.
The P/E ratio is frequently misapplied to Vital Energy, as reported in financial statements, because the company's heavy reliance on non-cash DD&A and derivative mark-to-market adjustments renders GAAP earnings a poor proxy for the firm's actual cash-generating capability and underlying operational health in the Permian Basin.
Analysts should instead prioritize EV/EBITDA or standardized free cash flow metrics to better assess the company's ability to fund its capital-intensive drilling program. Relying on P/E ignores the significant volatility inherent in the company's full-cost accounting method and the impact of its aggressive acquisition-related debt.
Includes 30+ ratios · 16 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 VTLE stock.
Vital Energy, Inc.'s current P/E ratio is -3.8x. The historical average is 12.6x.
Vital Energy, Inc.'s current EV/EBITDA is 4.5x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 11.9x.
Vital Energy, Inc.'s return on equity (ROE) is -6.3%. The historical average is -21.4%.
Based on historical data, Vital Energy, Inc. is trading at a P/E of -3.8x. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Vital Energy, Inc. has 31.4% gross margin and -1.2% operating margin.
Vital Energy, Inc.'s Debt/EBITDA ratio is 3.6x, indicating high leverage. A ratio between 2-4x is manageable but warrants monitoring.