Anup Engineering Share Price Today and Targets for 2026 to 2030

Anup Engineering share price today

Most readers reach this page from the plain query anup engineering share price, so the live quote sits at the top of the article. Everything below it is fixed to a single research cut-off, 10 September 2026, so that the ratios and the scenario inputs stay consistent with one another even after the quote moves.

At that cut-off the stock closed at about ₹1,752 on the NSE, giving a market capitalisation of roughly ₹3,509 crore across 2.00 crore shares. Trailing EPS was ₹42.28 and book value per share ₹344.96. That works out to about 41.4 times trailing earnings and 5.1 times book value, with a dividend yield of 0.70%.

The tension in the name is easy to state. On the quality side, Anup Engineering earns a 21% return on capital employed, carries very little debt, has no promoter pledging and sells into refinery, petrochemical and fertiliser capex cycles that are not going away. On the other side, the most recently reported period showed revenue down 28.5% year on year and earnings down 97.9% year on year, and the share is 30.93% below its 52-week high of ₹2,536.70. A high multiple on a shrinking earnings base is a different proposition from a high multiple on a growing one, and most of this article is about telling those two situations apart.

What Anup Engineering actually makes

Anup Engineering is a fabricator of static process equipment, based in Ahmedabad and founded in 1962. It was formerly named Anveshan Heavy Engineering and took its present name in January 2019. Yahoo Finance classifies it under Industrials and Specialty Industrial Machinery; it employs 391 people and exports as well as supplying the Indian market.

Product line	What it is	Customer problem solved	Economic characteristic
Static process equipment	Heat exchangers, reactors, pressure vessels, columns and towers	Moving heat and holding pressure inside a plant	Order-led, tied to plant capex cycles
Custom fabrication	Made-to-drawing vessels and assemblies	One-off equipment a standard catalogue cannot supply	Engineering-intensive, priced per job
Technology products	Helix changers, EMBaffle heat exchangers, polymerisation reactors	Higher thermal efficiency in specific duties	Licensed or differentiated, better mix
Industrial centrifuges	Rotating separation equipment	Solid-liquid separation in chemical processing	Broadens the addressable base beyond static equipment
Pre-fabrication engineering	Design and preparation services for static equipment	Reducing rework and site time for the buyer	Service revenue attached to the hardware

The end markets are oil and gas, petrochemicals, LNG, fertilisers, chemicals, power, hydrogen, water, paper and pulp, and aerospace. That list is the bull case and the risk in one sentence: the customer base is diversified across process industries, but almost every one of those industries spends on equipment in lumpy, project-shaped waves rather than a smooth annual budget.

A fabricator’s economics are therefore decided by three things — how full the shop is, what the mix of jobs looks like, and whether prices were fixed before input costs moved. None of those are visible in a P/E ratio.

The trailing year: the top line went backwards

Yahoo Finance carries four quarterly revenue readings for the company. They are reproduced here with the source’s own labels, because the labelling convention matters less than the shape.

Quarter (Yahoo label)	Revenue
3Q2025	₹232 Cr
4Q2025	₹207 Cr
1Q2026	₹208 Cr
2Q2026	₹125 Cr
Four-quarter total	₹772 Cr

Those four quarters sum to exactly the ₹772 crore of trailing-twelve-month revenue that Yahoo reports separately, which is a useful cross-check that the series is complete rather than a partial slice. The shape is the point. Three quarters clustered in a ₹207 crore to ₹232 crore band, then one quarter at ₹125 crore — a drop of about 40% from the quarter immediately before it.

No quarterly profit figures were captured for this company, so none is stated here and none should be inferred from the revenue line. What is available is the headline growth pair: revenue down 28.5% and earnings down 97.9% against the year-earlier period. An earnings decline of that magnitude usually means either a near-total collapse in a single quarter’s profit or a one-off charge sitting inside it. Without the profit-and-loss detail, the honest position is that the cause is not established from the figures on hand.

FY23 to FY26: revenue doubled, profit did not follow

The annual record tells a cleaner story than the last quarter does. Yahoo’s yearly rows are labelled by the calendar year in which the March financial year ended, so 2026 means FY26.

Financial year	Revenue	Net profit
FY23	₹411 Cr	Not captured
FY24	₹550 Cr	Not captured
FY25	₹733 Cr	₹118 Cr
FY26	₹822 Cr	₹110 Cr
Trailing 12 months	₹772 Cr	About ₹85 Cr

Revenue went from ₹411 crore to ₹822 crore between FY23 and FY26 — it exactly doubled in three years, a compound rate of about 26% a year. That is a genuine capacity and order-execution achievement for a company of this size.

Profit did not keep pace. It fell from ₹118 crore in FY25 to ₹110 crore in FY26 even as revenue rose ₹89 crore, and the trailing-twelve-month position is weaker still: applying the reported 10.97% net margin to ₹772 crore of trailing revenue gives roughly ₹85 crore of trailing profit. So the sequence over the last three reported periods is ₹118 crore, ₹110 crore, then about ₹85 crore while revenue first rose and then fell back. The five-year record confirms the same divergence from a longer distance: Screener-derived figures dated 5 August 2026 put the five-year sales CAGR at 24.12% and the five-year profit CAGR at 15.88%. Sales have compounded faster than profit for five years.

Return ratios and the balance sheet

This is where the quality argument lives. Whatever the last quarter did, the capital efficiency of the business over a full cycle has been good, and the balance sheet is not carrying risk that could force a bad decision. The return on equity guide explains what these ratios do and do not capture.

Measure	Reading	Why it matters
ROCE, latest	21.00%	Above the cost of capital for a fabricator
ROCE, five-year average	18.35%	The 21% is not a one-year spike
ROE	17.10%	Reasonable, and achieved with little leverage
Operating margin	21.48%	Strong for contract fabrication
EBITDA	₹142 Cr	About 18.4% of ₹772 Cr trailing revenue
Net profit margin	10.97%	Implies roughly ₹85 Cr of trailing profit
Total debt	₹122 Cr	Small against ₹3,509 Cr of market value
Cash	₹10 Cr	Net debt of about ₹112 Cr
Debt to equity	17.66%	Modest gearing
Promoter holding	46.25%	None of it pledged
Employees	391	A small headcount for ₹772 Cr of revenue

Two notes on the margin lines. The 21.48% operating margin and the 18.4% EBITDA margin are close enough to be describing the same business from slightly different bases. Yahoo also carries a separate operating-margin field reading 1.62%, which cannot be reconciled with either of them and should not be treated as the annual number.

The gearing deserves a word too. Net debt of about ₹112 crore against a 21% ROCE is not a solvency question, and the debt-to-equity ratio at 17.66% leaves headroom for working capital swings — which matters, because project fabrication ties up cash in work-in-progress long before it becomes a receivable.

Valuation at the 10 September 2026 cut-off

Valuation measure	Reading (10 Sep 2026 unless tagged)	Interpretation
Close	₹1,752	Fixed research input, not a live figure
Market capitalisation	₹3,509 Cr	Micro-cap; liquidity and execution risk are real
Trailing EPS	₹42.28	Yahoo trailing basis
P/E	41.44	Price divided by trailing EPS
Book value per share	₹344.96	Price-to-book of 5.08
EV/EBITDA	25.07 (5 Aug 2026)	Includes the modest net debt
PEG	2.49 (5 Aug 2026)	Growth is not cheap on this measure
Dividend yield	0.70%	The case rests on reinvestment, not income
52-week range	₹1,449.60 to ₹2,536.70	30.93% below the high, about 21% above the low

Two of those rows carry the earlier date because they were not recaptured at the cut-off, and the PEG is worth a second look for that reason. It is a stale construction rather than merely a stale observation: 2.49 is the 5 August P/E of 39.55 divided by the 15.88% five-year profit CAGR. Put the cut-off P/E of 41.44 over the same growth rate and the ratio reads closer to 2.6. The direction of that adjustment matters more than the decimal — the growth on offer got no cheaper as the price fell, because the earnings base fell with it.

The trailing EPS row needs the same kind of unpacking, and that one drives everything after it, because ₹42.28 is not a stable number. The Screener-derived figures dated 5 August 2026 showed trailing EPS of ₹55.40, a P/E of 39.55 and a market capitalisation of ₹4,405 crore. Five weeks later the trailing EPS reads ₹42.28 and the market capitalisation ₹3,509 crore. In other words the earnings base fell by roughly a quarter and the share price fell by roughly a fifth over the same short window, which is why the P/E barely moved — from 39.55 to 41.44 — despite a large price decline.

That is the arithmetic trap in this name. The multiple looks approximately unchanged, but it is being computed on a smaller denominator each time a weak quarter rolls into the trailing window. If the reader takes one number away from this section, it should be that the P/E ratio here is measuring a moving base, not a settled one.

What the Anup Engineering share price is discounting

At ₹1,752 the market is paying about 41 times a trailing earnings figure that has just fallen and about five times book, against a last-captured EV/EBITDA of 25.07 carried over from the August reading. For that price to be justified on earnings rather than on asset value, the trailing year has to be the trough rather than the new level.

There is a reasonable case for that reading. A fabricator’s revenue is recognised as jobs complete, so one weak quarter can reflect the timing of completions rather than the loss of demand, and the FY23-to-FY26 doubling of revenue shows the shop can be filled. There is an equally reasonable case against it: five years of sales compounding at 24.12% while profit compounded at 15.88% says pricing and mix have been giving something back, and a PEG of 2.49 on the August capture — nearer 2.6 on the cut-off multiple — says the market is not being asked to discover growth. It is already in the price.

The framework below does not resolve that argument. It makes both sides explicit and prices them, which is the most a scenario model can honestly do. The general method is set out in the guide on how to value a stock.

Valuation framework

The scenario model starts with TTM EPS of ₹42.28. For each year it applies EPS_TTM × (1 + growth)^(year − 2026 + 112/365) × exit P/E, then rounds the result to the nearest ₹5. The 112/365 factor represents the fraction of the first forecast year remaining from 10 September to 31 December. Dividends are excluded.

Scenario	Annual EPS growth	Exit P/E	Business interpretation
Bear	8%	25×	The weak trailing year is the new level; the multiple de-rates toward an ordinary engineering rating
Base	14%	36×	Order execution normalises and profit compounds a little below the five-year 15.88% rate, at a slightly lower multiple than today
Bull	20%	46×	Export and technology-product mix lifts margins, profit growth closes the gap with the 24.12% sales CAGR and the rating expands modestly

The multiple range is set deliberately from well below to only modestly above the present 41.44. Bear at 25 times is a de-rating, not a collapse. Base at 36 times still asks the market to pay a premium rating for a micro-cap fabricator. Bull at 46 times is above today’s rating but not dramatically so, because assuming both peak growth and permanent multiple expansion at the same time would just be restating current enthusiasm with more decimal places.

Growth rates are anchored on the five-year record and then moderated. The five-year profit CAGR of 15.88% sits between the base and bull assumptions; the bear case assumes the recent earnings decline is structural rather than cyclical.

Anup Engineering share price target 2026 to 2030

The grid above is generated only from the three disclosed inputs: trailing EPS, an annual growth rate and an exit multiple. It models nothing else. It does not model a new equity issue, a large capex programme, an acquisition, a change in the order book, currency translation on export contracts, exceptional items, or a shift in the customer mix between refinery, fertiliser and chemical buyers. It also assumes the trailing EPS base is a fair starting point, which — as the valuation section showed — is exactly the assumption most open to challenge in this name. Any of those factors should be re-entered before the framework is used after another set of results.

Risks that can break the thesis

The first risk is the one already visible in the data: earnings that fell 97.9% year on year in the latest reported period against a 28.5% revenue decline. If that is the beginning of a run rather than a single disturbed quarter, a 41 times multiple has a long way to fall before it looks ordinary.

The second is cyclicality. Refinery, petrochemical, LNG and fertiliser capex is decided in multi-year waves. A fabricator with 391 employees and ₹772 crore of trailing revenue has limited ability to smooth a gap between waves, and revenue recognised on job completion makes the reported line lumpier still.

The third is fixed-price execution. Static process equipment is quoted, then built over months. Steel and alloy costs, welding capacity, inspection delays and client-side drawing changes all land inside a price agreed earlier. That is the most common way a fabricator’s margin disappears without demand changing at all.

The fourth is concentration in the order book. No order-book detail was captured for this research note, which itself is a limitation — a single large delayed or cancelled contract would show up in revenue and in profit before it showed up in any ratio on this page.

The fifth is valuation compression on its own. A PEG in the 2.5-to-2.6 range and an EV/EBITDA in the mid-twenties mean the share can produce a poor return over several years even if earnings recover, simply because the starting rating was generous.

What would change the picture

The scorecard below sets out the thresholds. What a table cannot carry is why those particular bars are the right ones to watch, and that reasoning is worth stating first.

Start with the revenue bar. It is deliberately set at the level the shop was already running at for three of the last four quarters, not at some ambitious recovery number, and that is exactly what makes it a test. A return to that band would say the weak quarter was about when jobs were signed off rather than whether the work exists. Two or three more quarters without it, and the completion-timing explanation has run out of road: at that point the fall has to be read as demand, and the trailing base the whole valuation rests on stops being a trough and becomes the level.

The capital test is the harder of the two, and it is the one that matters most while revenue is recovering, because a fabricator can buy a recovery. Quoting more keenly to fill the shop, or letting work-in-progress and receivables swell to keep jobs moving, both show up in the revenue line first and both look constructive there. Where they show up next is the return on capital — the first through the margin, the second through the denominator. So revenue recovering while the return on capital holds is evidence of a genuine trough; revenue recovering while it slips is evidence that the recovery was purchased. The mix question sits underneath both, because a rising share of technology products and exports is the part of the range least exposed to commodity fabrication pricing, and it is what would make a margin recovery durable rather than a good run of favourable jobs.

The balance sheet is the last of the signals rather than an early one. Its virtue today is that it is not forcing anything: gearing is modest, none of the promoter stake is pledged, and a slow year is therefore an inconvenience rather than a financing event. Borrowings rising without a matching rise in the order book would remove that cushion, which is why the scorecard tracks it even though it is the slowest of its lines to move.

Quarterly monitoring scorecard

Question	Constructive evidence	Warning sign
Has revenue recovered?	Quarters back above ₹200 Cr	Another quarter near ₹125 Cr
Is profit rebuilding?	Annual profit heading back toward ₹110 Cr	Net margin staying below 10.97%
Is capital still working?	ROCE at or above 21%	ROCE drifting toward the 18.35% five-year average or below
Is margin defended?	Operating margin near 21.48%	Fixed-price jobs compressing it
Is the balance sheet quiet?	Debt near ₹122 Cr, pledge at nil	Borrowings rising without order-book support
Is the mix improving?	More technology products and exports	Growth concentrated in commodity fabrication
Is the trailing base stable?	Trailing EPS rising off ₹42.28	Trailing EPS falling again as in the 5 Aug to 10 Sep window

FAQ

What is Anup Engineering’s share price target for 2026?

The 2026 line in the grid above is computed from trailing EPS of ₹42.28, one of three annual growth rates and one of three exit multiples, with only 112 of 365 days of 2026 left to compound from the 10 September cut-off. Because so little of the year remains, the 2026 figures are driven almost entirely by the choice of exit multiple rather than by the growth rate. They are scenario outputs, not forecasts.

What is Anup Engineering’s share price target for 2030?

The 2030 line compounds the same EPS base forward by just over four years, so the growth assumption dominates and the spread between the three scenarios is wide. Read it as a range of outcomes conditional on the stated assumptions holding, not as a prediction. If the trailing EPS base moves materially at the next set of results, every number in the column moves with it.

What does Anup Engineering do?

It manufactures static process equipment — heat exchangers, reactors, pressure vessels, columns and towers — plus custom fabrication, technology products such as helix changers and EMBaffle heat exchangers, industrial centrifuges and pre-fabrication engineering services. Its customers are in oil and gas, petrochemicals, LNG, fertilisers, chemicals, power, hydrogen, water, paper and pulp, and aerospace. It is based in Ahmedabad, was founded in 1962, and exports alongside its Indian business.

What is the ROCE of Anup Engineering?

The latest reading is 21.00%, and the five-year average is 18.35%. The gap between the two is small, which is the useful part: the current figure is consistent with the company’s own history rather than a single strong year. ROE is lower at 17.10%, which is normal for a business that uses very little leverage.

Who are the promoters of Anup Engineering?

Promoters held 46.25% at the cut-off, with none of that stake pledged. The company is an Arvind-group descendant that took its current name in January 2019 after being known as Anveshan Heavy Engineering. Institutional and public shareholding splits were not captured for this note, so only the promoter figure is stated here.

Related research

• INOX India share price target — cryogenic equipment, the closest listed comparison in process fabrication
• Kirloskar Pneumatic share price target — compressors, another engineered-equipment order-book business
• Welspun Corp share price target — line pipes, exposed to the same oil-and-gas capex cycle
• How to value a stock — the method behind the scenario framework used above
• P/E ratio formula — why a trailing multiple moves when the earnings base moves
• Return on equity explained — how to read the ROE and ROCE figures in this note
• Debt-to-equity ratio — the gearing measure used in the balance-sheet table

Sources and methodology

• Anup Engineering on Screener.in
• Anup Engineering quote and filings on NSE
• Anup Engineering company website

All price, valuation and ratio figures attributed to Yahoo Finance below were captured on 10 September 2026. The close of ₹1,752, market capitalisation of ₹3,509 crore, trailing EPS of ₹42.28, book value of ₹344.96, P/E of 41.44, price-to-book of 5.08, dividend yield of 0.70%, debt, cash, EBITDA, employee count, the 52-week range and both the annual and quarterly revenue rows come from Yahoo Finance. The business description also comes from Yahoo’s company summary.

No Screener financial-statement tables were captured for this company at the cut-off. The five-year sales CAGR of 24.12%, the five-year profit CAGR of 15.88%, the five-year average ROCE of 18.35%, the operating margin of 21.48%, the PEG of 2.49, the EV/EBITDA of 25.07 and the nil pledge come instead from Screener-derived figures dated 5 August 2026, and the earlier trailing EPS of ₹55.40 and market capitalisation of ₹4,405 crore quoted in the valuation section come from that same 5 August reading. Because the two capture dates are five weeks apart, they are labelled separately wherever both appear rather than blended. Quarterly profit was not captured at all, so no quarterly profit or margin figure is stated anywhere above.

Analytical judgment begins with the interpretation: the reading of the ₹125 crore quarter, the divergence between the sales and profit CAGRs, the argument about a moving trailing-EPS base, the three growth rates, the three exit multiples and every risk listed. Those are the author’s assessment, not reported data.

---

This article is research and education, not personalised investment advice or a recommendation to transact. Gale is not a SEBI-registered investment adviser. The scenarios are illustrations, not guarantees. Verify current exchange filings, liquidity, corporate actions and suitability, and consult a registered adviser before acting.