Every figure this model derived for ASTS, 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
ASTS on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-333.28
current ratio
14.15
current ratio reported
13.05
dilution pct
65.74
ev owner earnings
-8.9
ev sales
137.81
fcf margin
-1420.69
growth cv
1.71
interest cover
-8.98
operating margin
-519.47
owner earnings margin
-1549.01
revenue growth
2256.89
revenue growth per share
1322.04
roic
-60.57
rule of 40
1737.42
sbc pct revenue
128.33
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ASTS's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: capex intensity -- capex intensity came out at 1,295% against a scale that tops out near 1,250%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 115,299,000 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
operating income last tagged 2021-03-31, 1917 days before the revenue period (2026-06-30); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus OperatingExpenses
gross profit last tagged 2023-12-31 and no cost of sales line to rebuild it from; dropped from durability
there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (137.8x) instead
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`
durability rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: gross margin stability