Every figure this model derived for AGCC, 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
cash
15,824,906
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2025-12-31
current assets
27,900,006
AssetsCurrent
2025-12-31
current liabilities
18,221,416
LiabilitiesCurrent
2025-12-31
equity
9,867,891
StockholdersEquity
2025-12-31
interest expense
2,157
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2025-12-31
ocf
-7,498,413
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-12-31
revenue
6,206,178
Revenues
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
AGCC on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
12.63
current ratio
1.54
current ratio reported
1.53
deferred revenue growth
191.61
dilution pct
27.32
ebit cagr
61.84
ebit yoy
-22.72
fcf margin
-120.82
interest cover
363.48
operating margin
12.63
owner earnings margin
-120.82
revenue growth
144.56
revenue growth per share
92.08
rule of 40
157.19
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about AGCC'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 current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
invested capital is -6M (cash exceeds equity plus debt), so return on capital is unbounded rather than undefined; scored as maximal
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: worst year
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth