Every figure this model derived for AFRM, 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 2026-03-31.
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
AFRM on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
36.37
dilution pct
10.07
ev owner earnings
73.04
ev sales
25.93
fcf margin
57.73
growth cv
0.42
interest cover
-0.2
net debt ebitda
37.11
operating margin
-6.4
owner earnings margin
35.5
revenue growth
32.15
revenue growth per share
20.06
roic
-0.63
rule of 40
25.74
sbc pct revenue
22.23
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about AFRM's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
operating income is annual, not TTM
there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (25.9x) 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 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