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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
439,223
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-12-31
cash
19,606,246
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
37,539,305
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
608,054
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-03-31
equity
3,061,175
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
ocf
-21,634,430
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
17,702,934
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
3,462,633
ShareBasedCompensation
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ENHA on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
13.74
current ratio
61.74
current ratio reported
61.74
dilution pct
1.75
fcf margin
-124.69
operating margin
-5.87
owner earnings margin
-144.25
sbc pct revenue
19.56
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
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2026-03-31 (152 days old, balance sheet); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
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
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