Every figure this model derived for DAC, 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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
cash
1,157,536,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2025-12-31
current assets
1,319,419,000
AssetsCurrent
2025-12-31
current liabilities
401,676,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2025-12-31
equity
3,795,577,000
StockholdersEquity
2025-12-31
interest expense
33,552,000
InterestPaidNet
2025-12-31
ocf
644,753,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-12-31
revenue
1,042,456,000
Revenues
2025-12-31
sbc
16,755,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
DAC on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
65.12
current ratio
3.61
current ratio reported
3.28
deferred revenue growth
-26.26
dilution pct
-4.67
ebit cagr
8.62
ebit yoy
-7.79
ev ebit
5.53
ev owner earnings
4.39
ev sales
2.65
fcf margin
61.85
growth cv
1.13
interest cover
14.87
operating margin
47.85
owner earnings margin
60.24
revenue growth
2.8
revenue growth per share
7.83
roic
10.39
rule of 40
50.64
sbc pct revenue
1.61
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about DAC's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
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`
durability rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: gross margin stability