Every figure this model derived for AIHS, 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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
415
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-03-31
cash
12,871,865
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
13,711,428
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
50,059,573
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
-38,579,592
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
ocf
-2,162,053
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
1,546,127
Revenues
2026-03-31
sbc
250,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-03-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
AIHS on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-138.84
current ratio
0.27
current ratio reported
0.27
deferred revenue growth
-32.44
dilution pct
154.43
fcf margin
-139.86
operating margin
-208.07
owner earnings margin
-156.03
revenue growth
-18.46
revenue growth per share
-67.95
rule of 40
-226.53
sbc pct revenue
16.17
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about AIHS's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: net margin -- net margin came out at -2,449% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 1,546,127 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
revenue is annual, not TTM
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 13M of net cash against a 2M annual burn is 6.0 years
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
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