Every figure this model derived for ADC, 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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
0
PaymentsToAcquireOtherProductiveAssets
2025-12-31
cash
12,518,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
6,520,136,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
147,822,000
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-06-30
ocf
533,960,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
779,618,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
13,912,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ADC on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
83.1
dilution pct
9.16
ebit cagr
16.64
ebit yoy
20.32
ev ebit
24.37
ev owner earnings
17.5
ev sales
11.67
fcf margin
68.49
growth cv
0.33
interest cover
2.53
operating margin
47.92
owner earnings margin
66.71
revenue growth
18.17
revenue growth per share
8.25
roic
4.53
rule of 40
66.08
sbc pct revenue
1.78
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ADC's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
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`
durability DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (contracted coverage, gross margin stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity