Every figure this model derived for CON, 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
CON on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
20.49
current ratio
1.38
current ratio reported
1.38
dilution pct
12.35
ebit cagr
11.21
ebit yoy
18.92
fcf margin
11.69
growth cv
0.55
interest cover
3.58
net debt ebitda
3.11
operating margin
16.39
owner earnings margin
11.07
revenue growth
14.02
revenue growth per share
1.49
roic
15.64
rule of 40
30.4
sbc pct revenue
0.62
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about CON's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
gross profit not tagged; rebuilt from RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax - CostOfGoodsAndServiceExcludingDepreciationDepletionAndAmortization - dep_amort
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
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth