Every figure this model derived for BFRG, 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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
0
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2022-12-31
cash
6,918,141
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
7,470,520
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
706,590
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
6,987,262
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
5,520
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-06-30
ocf
-5,499,495
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
116,670
Revenues
2025-12-31
sbc
768,929
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
BFRG on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
10.57
current ratio reported
10.57
dilution pct
25.39
interest cover
-1105.44
revenue growth
79.49
revenue growth per share
43.15
roic
-3026.9
rule of 40
-5150.67
sbc pct revenue
659.06
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about BFRG's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, owner earnings margin, fcf margin, net margin, ocf margin, ebitda margin -- owner earnings margin came out at -5,373% against a scale that tops out near 1,750%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 116,670 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
revenue is annual, not TTM
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2022-12-31); 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 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, owner earnings, cash operating margin 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 sales, ev owner earnings not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
durability DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
4 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, growth -- 85% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left