Every figure this model derived for ATOM, 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
ATOM on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
17.02
current ratio reported
17.02
dilution pct
13.34
ev owner earnings
-5.97
ev sales
544.17
growth cv
2.52
interest cover
-903.38
revenue growth
369.39
revenue growth per share
314.16
rule of 40
-9842.79
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ATOM's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, sbc pct revenue, owner earnings margin, fcf margin, net margin, ocf margin, ebitda margin -- operating margin came out at -10,212% against a scale that tops out near 2,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 230,000 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (544.2x) 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`
quality DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, sbc discipline, owner earnings, cash operating margin 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