Every figure this model derived for CRTD, 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
CRTD on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-612.93
current ratio
1.17
current ratio reported
1.15
deferred revenue growth
94.2
dilution pct
333.16
fcf margin
1055.53
growth cv
1.73
interest cover
-11.23
operating margin
-2151.3
owner earnings margin
-349.2
revenue growth
-22.74
revenue growth per share
-82.16
rule of 40
-2174.04
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about CRTD's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: sbc pct revenue, net margin -- net margin came out at -2,133% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 377,668 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
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
operating income is annual, not TTM
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 3 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic, sbc discipline
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