Every figure this model derived for ALOY, 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 figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ALOY on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-737.8
current ratio
35.08
current ratio reported
30.68
deferred revenue growth
-30.24
dilution pct
12.45
fcf margin
-1336.3
growth cv
79.45
interest cover
-79533.44
revenue growth
243.18
revenue growth per share
205.19
rule of 40
-8131.53
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ALOY's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, sbc pct revenue, owner earnings margin, net margin, ebitda margin -- net margin came out at -9,660% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 1,510,000 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
only 180 days of filings, not a full year: margins and growth are measured, but return on capital and every enterprise-value multiple are refused rather than annualised
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2024-12-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
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 DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, sbc discipline, owner earnings not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
valuation DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 2 inputs could be computed (ev ebit, 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: contracted coverage
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation -- 55% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left