Every figure this model derived for ABTS, 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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ABTS on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
81.75
current ratio
0.33
current ratio reported
0.33
dilution pct
0.0
ebit yoy
8.92
fcf margin
-18.48
growth cv
1.6
net debt ebitda
0.04
operating margin
40.27
owner earnings margin
-21.4
revenue growth
36.02
revenue growth per share
36.02
roic
35.98
rule of 40
76.3
sbc pct revenue
2.92
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ABTS's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-12-31 (242 days old, dei cover page); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
gross profit not tagged; rebuilt from RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax - CostOfRevenue
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: contracted coverage
no interest expense tagged while 0M of debt is on the balance sheet, so interest cover is unmeasured rather than perfect