Every figure this model derived for CPLX, 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
0
PaymentsToAcquireProductiveAssets
2026-06-30
cash
1,621
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
1,621
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
194,234
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
-120,028
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
4,783
InterestPaidNet
2026-06-30
ocf
-7,821
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
116,342
Revenues
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
CPLX on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-40.61
current ratio
0.01
current ratio reported
0.01
dilution pct
0.0
fcf margin
-6.72
interest cover
-10.18
operating margin
-41.85
owner earnings margin
-6.72
revenue growth
2.44
revenue growth per share
2.44
rule of 40
-39.41
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about CPLX's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
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 rests on 4 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic
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 rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability -- 35% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left