Every figure this model derived for EDVA, 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
capex
3,235
PaymentsToAcquireProductiveAssets
2024-12-31
cash
242,702
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
900,407
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
16,825,377
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
-15,749,045
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
2,381,343
InterestExpense
2026-06-30
ocf
-5,483,021
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
73,066
Revenues
2025-12-31
sbc
9,713,454
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
EDVA on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
0.05
current ratio reported
0.05
dilution pct
62.81
growth cv
3.32
interest cover
-5.67
revenue growth
-90.88
revenue growth per share
-94.4
rule of 40
-18577.49
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about EDVA's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, sbc pct revenue, owner earnings margin, fcf margin, net margin, ocf margin, ebitda margin -- net margin came out at -23,653% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 73,066 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
revenue 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 DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, sbc discipline, owner earnings, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
valuation DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 2 inputs could be computed (ev sales, 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
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation -- 55% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left