Nanobiotix S.A. (NBTX) — Available-Data Snapshot

We don't publish a discounted-cash-flow fair value for Nanobiotix S.A. (NBTX) because the free data sources we rely on don't expose the multi-year financials a DCF needs — common for small or thinly-covered listings. Rather than invent numbers, this page shows an honest snapshot of what the public data does support: the current price and size, any relative valuation multiples that exist, a book-value view, and a price-based read. Treat it as a descriptive starting point, not a valuation and not investment advice.

On the numbers we do have, NBTX trades at a recent price of $41.67, a market capitalisation of about $2,117,308,672, sitting 68% of the way up its 52-week range ($8.03–$57.14), on the NasdaqGS.

The standard alternative to a DCF is relative valuation — comparing NBTX's trading multiples against a sector benchmark. Here that gives Fwd P/E of -122.6× (cheaper than the peer median of 16.1×); P/B of -20.5× (cheaper than the peer median of 8.4×); P/S of 65.0× (richer than the peer median of 6.8×); EV/EBITDA of -196.3× (cheaper than the peer median of 17.1×). A cheaper multiple than peers can flag a discount or a market that expects weaker growth; it is a comparison, not a recommendation.

The asset, or book-value, lens is the classic tool for asset-heavy businesses and financials. NBTX shows a price-to-book (P/B) of -20.54 and book value of $-2.03 per share. Price-to-book compares the market price to the accounting net-asset value per share; below 1.0 can mean a discount to net assets or that the market is pricing in trouble — descriptive either way, never a buy signal on its own.

Finally, a price-based read — explicitly not a valuation. NBTX is in an up-trend (price above both its 50- and 200-day averages), trading -27.1% from its 52-week high. Over the past year the stock is +360.9%. Moving-average trend and 52-week position describe where the stock has traded; they say nothing about what it is worth.

What's missing and why: we can't build a DCF for NBTX because the data source doesn't reliably provide dividend. We would rather say so plainly than manufacture a precise-looking number from nothing. As coverage improves, or for larger and more widely-followed listings, a full intrinsic-value model becomes possible.