Every figure this model derived for AMPGZ, 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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
1,015,710
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-12-31
cash
12,952,945
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
31,249,341
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
8,317,161
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
46,753,882
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
7,743
InterestPaidNet
2026-06-30
ocf
-13,101,856
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
23,990,729
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
1,873,162
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
AMPGZ on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-18.58
current ratio
3.76
current ratio reported
3.76
dilution pct
94.75
fcf margin
-58.85
growth cv
1.36
interest cover
-1074.5
operating margin
-34.68
owner earnings margin
-66.65
revenue growth
24.22
revenue growth per share
-36.21
roic
-19.43
rule of 40
-10.46
sbc pct revenue
7.81
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about AMPGZ's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
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`
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: contracted coverage