Every figure this model derived for DPLM.L, 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 2025-09-30.
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
DPLM.L on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
18.61
current ratio
2.04
current ratio reported
2.04
ev ebit
35.63
ev owner earnings
39.77
ev sales
6.63
fcf margin
16.67
net debt ebitda
1.05
operating margin
18.61
owner earnings margin
16.67
revenue growth
11.82
revenue growth per share
11.82
roic
17.4
rule of 40
30.43
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about DPLM.L'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 stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no usable diluted share count, so growth is measured on total revenue rather than per share; a company issuing shares to fund that growth reads better than it is
gross profit last tagged 2022-09-30 and no cost of sales line to rebuild it from; dropped from durability
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 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
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: interest cover
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
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (durability, growth -- 30% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left
no interest expense tagged while 380M of debt is on the balance sheet, so interest cover is unmeasured rather than perfect