Every figure this model derived for CRMD, 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
CRMD on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
110.94
current ratio
2.56
current ratio reported
2.56
deferred revenue growth
-80.0
dilution pct
36.44
ebit yoy
340.08
fcf margin
109.18
growth cv
1.98
interest cover
77.05
operating margin
94.63
owner earnings margin
102.07
revenue growth
191.0
revenue growth per share
113.28
rule of 40
285.63
sbc pct revenue
7.12
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about CRMD's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
only 180 days of filings, not a full year: margins and growth are measured, but return on capital and every enterprise-value multiple are refused rather than annualised
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 ebit, 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