AGILLIC A/S (AGILC.CO)

Every figure this model derived for AGILC.CO, 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
capex	0	`PurchaseOfPropertyPlantAndEquipmentClassifiedAsInvestingActivities`	2024-12-31
cash	1,386,000	`CashAndCashEquivalents`	2026-01-01
current assets	3,679,000	`CurrentAssets`	2026-01-01
current liabilities	39,440,000	`CurrentLiabilities`	2026-01-01
equity	-28,517,000	`Equity`	2026-01-01
interest expense	2,309,000	`FinanceCosts`	2025-12-31
ocf	12,243,000	`CashFlowsFromUsedInOperatingActivities`	2024-12-31
revenue	58,432,000	`Revenue`	2025-12-31
sbc	353,000	`AdjustmentsForSharebasedPayments`	2025-12-31

The ratios

The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up AGILC.CO on one particular measure came for.

Ratio	Value
cash operating margin	-7.25
current ratio	0.09
current ratio reported	0.09
ev owner earnings	7.51
ev sales	1.53
fcf margin	20.95
interest cover	-1.99
operating margin	-7.85
owner earnings margin	20.35
revenue growth	-2.92
revenue growth per share	-2.92
rule of 40	-10.77
sbc pct revenue	0.6

What to be careful about

What this model itself distrusts about AGILC.CO's figures. Written by the derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.

revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
no usable diluted share count, so growth is measured on total revenue rather than per share; a company issuing shares to fund that growth reads better than it is
there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (1.5x) 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`
quality rests on 4 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic
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