Every figure this model derived for AU, 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 2025-12-31.
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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
AU on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
61.25
current ratio
2.87
current ratio reported
2.87
ev ebit
11.93
ev owner earnings
17.14
ev sales
5.71
fcf margin
33.71
growth cv
0.95
interest cover
40.8
operating margin
47.84
owner earnings margin
33.31
revenue growth
70.78
revenue growth per share
70.78
roic
50.23
rule of 40
118.62
sbc pct revenue
0.4
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about AU's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
presents no operating result; summed as revenue minus the costs it does tag (CostOfSales, SellingGeneralAndAdministrativeExpense). Checked against the company's own figures: the answer lands 4.6% of revenue from the 4,276M pre-tax profit it reports, which is its interest and other non-operating items
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
no usable diluted share count, so growth is measured on total revenue rather than per share; a company issuing shares to fund that growth reads better than it is
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: contracted coverage
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions