Every figure this model derived for ENTX, 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
73,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
12,172,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
18,896,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
2,104,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
7,266,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
ocf
-10,889,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
0
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
2,933,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ENTX on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
8.98
current ratio reported
8.98
deferred revenue growth
-100.0
dilution pct
22.7
revenue growth
-100.0
revenue growth per share
-100.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ENTX's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 12M of net cash against a 11M annual burn is 1.1 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 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
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, growth -- 75% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left