Enhanced Group Inc. (ENHA)

Every figure this model derived for ENHA, 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 ratios

The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up ENHA on one particular measure came for.

Everything else this filing tags

165 more elements from ENHA's own XBRL that this model has no measure for, newest reading each, largest first. Nothing here is converted, added up or renamed — it is the filing's own element names and the filing's own numbers.

What to be careful about

What this model itself distrusts about ENHA's figures. Written by the derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.

• 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
• the market value here was 23.9M: 20.5M shares from the filing at the quoted price. The price feed reports 136.5M shares, and that count at this same price gives 159.7M, which is the value the feed itself reports. So the two counts are of different things — a depositary receipt against the ordinary shares behind it, or a count filed in thousands — and the count the price belongs to is used
• no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 20M of net cash against a 22M annual burn is 0.9 years
• analyst estimate not used: trailing EPS is not positive, so a growth rate would be meaningless
• 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