Every figure this model derived for BX, 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
111,651,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
2,507,073,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
9,014,543,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
536,453,000
InterestExpense
2026-06-30
ocf
5,597,890,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
16,110,480,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
1,577,352,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
BX on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
57.55
dilution pct
1.77
ebit cagr
24.36
ebit yoy
16.45
ev ebit
15.61
ev owner earnings
30.34
ev sales
7.36
fcf margin
34.05
growth cv
2.08
interest cover
14.16
net debt ebitda
1.41
operating margin
47.16
owner earnings margin
24.26
revenue growth
17.19
revenue growth per share
15.15
roic
30.27
rule of 40
64.35
sbc pct revenue
9.79
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about BX's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus CostsAndExpenses
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 DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (contracted coverage, gross margin stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity