Every figure this model derived for ALMU, 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
515,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-03-31
cash
37,780,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-03-31
current assets
40,174,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-03-31
current liabilities
1,539,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-03-31
equity
40,085,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-03-31
ocf
-1,708,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-03-31
revenue
5,196,000
Revenues
2026-03-31
sbc
3,955,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-03-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ALMU on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
355.89
current ratio
26.1
current ratio reported
26.1
dilution pct
7.08
ebit yoy
210.97
fcf margin
-42.78
operating margin
271.44
owner earnings margin
-118.9
revenue growth
43.23
revenue growth per share
33.76
roic
483.39
rpo growth
-5.42
rule of 40
314.67
sbc pct revenue
76.12
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ALMU's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2026-05-08 (114 days old, dei cover page); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
gross profit not tagged; rebuilt from Revenues - CostOfRevenue
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 DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, growth -- 45% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left