Every figure this model derived for CDNA, 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
CDNA on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
34.82
current ratio
4.87
current ratio reported
4.58
deferred revenue growth
-6.8
dilution pct
-5.89
fcf margin
20.45
growth cv
1.31
operating margin
23.61
owner earnings margin
12.38
revenue growth
34.41
revenue growth per share
42.82
roic
164.4
rule of 40
58.01
sbc pct revenue
8.07
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about CDNA's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2018-12-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
gross profit last tagged 2020-06-30 and no cost of sales line to rebuild it from; dropped from durability
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`
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 rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: gross margin stability
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: margin recent