Every figure this model derived for CRDL, 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 2025-12-31.
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
CRDL on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
4.16
current ratio reported
4.16
dilution pct
21.56
revenue growth
-39.13
revenue growth per share
-49.93
rule of 40
-4763.28
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about CRDL's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, sbc pct revenue, owner earnings margin, fcf margin, net margin, ocf margin, ebitda margin -- owner earnings margin came out at -4,760% against a scale that tops out near 1,750%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 726,401 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
reports in CAD while its share price is quoted in USD, and no exchange rate could be used (no rate for USD to CAD that is less than 30 days old, and this is not a refresh). Every multiple would pair one currency with another, so none of them is a ratio — set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml in CAD to score it
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 21M of net cash against a 24M annual burn is 0.9 years
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 DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, sbc discipline, owner earnings, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
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 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage, gross margin stability, cash flow stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
4 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, growth -- 85% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left
no interest expense tagged while 0M of debt is on the balance sheet, so interest cover is unmeasured rather than perfect