Every figure this model derived for ABCL, the value it took, and
the element in the company's own XBRL it was read from — so any of it can be checked
against the filing rather than taken on trust.
As at 2026-06-30.
The figures, and where each came from
This is the part no other screener shows. Each figure below names the XBRL element it
was read from, so it can be checked against the filing itself.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ABCL on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-230.54
current ratio
20.91
current ratio reported
12.77
deferred revenue growth
22.16
dilution pct
1.49
fcf margin
-180.85
growth cv
3.15
operating margin
-340.25
owner earnings margin
-258.06
revenue growth
101.28
revenue growth per share
98.33
roic
-22.92
rule of 40
-238.97
sbc pct revenue
77.22
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ABCL's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 120M of net cash against a 120M annual burn is 1.0 years
no forward EPS estimate; growth rests on filings only. Analyst consensus is not published in XBRL, so it has to be fetched from a data provider or set by hand in overrides.yaml as `eps_growth_2y`
valuation DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 2 inputs could be computed (ev sales, ev owner earnings not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
durability rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: gross margin stability