Every figure this model derived for CTOR, 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
cash
16,563,705
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
42,707,165
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
58,787,194
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
40,384,994
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
367,881
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-06-30
ocf
-5,492,046
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-09-30
revenue
7,105,197
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
13,341,683
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
CTOR on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-477.85
current ratio
0.73
current ratio reported
0.73
dilution pct
7.67
fcf margin
-77.3
interest cover
-128.56
operating margin
-665.63
owner earnings margin
-265.07
sbc pct revenue
187.77
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about CTOR's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
only 272 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 current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
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 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 (revenue growth, sustained growth, margin trend not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability, growth -- 55% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left