Alumis Inc. (ALMS)

Every figure this model derived for ALMS, 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 2026-06-30.

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 ratios

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

Everything else this filing tags

217 more elements from ALMS's own XBRL that this model has no measure for, newest reading each, largest first. Nothing here is converted, added up or renamed — it is the filing's own element names and the filing's own numbers.

What to be careful about

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

• WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, owner earnings margin, fcf margin, net margin, ocf margin, ebitda margin -- operating margin came out at -6,204% against a scale that tops out near 2,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 7,398,000 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
• diluted share count moved +200% in a year (28M to 85M, a ratio of 3.00), which is a stock split rather than issuance; growth is measured on total revenue, not per share
• there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (66.4x) instead
• no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 283M of net cash against a 352M annual burn is 0.8 years
• analyst estimate not used: trailing EPS is not positive, so a growth rate would be meaningless
• quality DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, owner earnings, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
• durability DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, 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 (revenue growth, sustained growth, margin trend not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
• 3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, durability, growth -- 60% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left