Every figure this model derived for ADXN, 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 2024-12-31.
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
ADXN on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-613.1
current ratio
2.31
current ratio reported
2.31
dilution pct
31.96
ev owner earnings
-85.44
ev sales
1140.16
fcf margin
-1330.07
interest cover
-1712.39
operating margin
-681.82
owner earnings margin
-1334.41
revenue growth
-74.95
revenue growth per share
-81.01
roic
-44.0
rule of 40
-756.76
sbc pct revenue
4.34
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ADXN's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: net margin -- net margin came out at 1,746% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 404,102 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
revenue period ends 2024-12-31 (608 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
reports in CHF and quotes in USD, so the share price is converted at 1 USD = 0.8093 CHF as at 2026-08-30. Only the price is converted: every figure from the filing is as reported, and only the multiples built on market capitalisation carry the rate
there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (1140.2x) instead
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 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage, gross margin stability, cash flow stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (durability, growth -- 30% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left