Every figure this model derived for CLPR, 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
CLPR on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
44.46
dilution pct
0.17
ebit cagr
3.09
ebit yoy
253.98
fcf margin
16.85
growth cv
0.61
interest cover
0.5
operating margin
20.3
owner earnings margin
14.07
revenue growth
-1.72
revenue growth per share
-1.88
rule of 40
18.58
sbc pct revenue
2.78
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about CLPR's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2024-12-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
invested capital is -78M (cash exceeds equity plus debt), so return on capital is unbounded rather than undefined; scored as maximal
gross profit not tagged; rebuilt from RevenueFromContractWithCustomerIncludingAssessedTax - CostOfRevenue
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: contracted coverage
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity