Every figure this model derived for ABLV, 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 2025-12-31.
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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
27,171
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-12-31
cash
9,010,336
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2025-12-31
current assets
32,110,432
AssetsCurrent
2025-12-31
current liabilities
19,771,916
LiabilitiesCurrent
2025-12-31
equity
7,772,209
StockholdersEquity
2025-12-31
interest expense
671,679
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2025-12-31
ocf
1,195,826
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-12-31
revenue
105,203,366
Revenues
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ABLV on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-0.41
current ratio
1.7
current ratio reported
1.62
deferred revenue growth
342.18
dilution pct
16.05
fcf margin
1.11
interest cover
-0.72
operating margin
-0.46
owner earnings margin
1.11
revenue growth
-17.01
revenue growth per share
-28.48
roic
-40.78
rule of 40
-17.47
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ABLV's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-12-31 (242 days old, weighted average diluted); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
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