Every figure this model derived for EONR-WT, 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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
20,000
PaymentsToAcquireOtherPropertyPlantAndEquipment
2024-12-31
cash
875,604
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2025-09-30
current assets
5,317,897
AssetsCurrent
2025-09-30
current liabilities
15,258,502
LiabilitiesCurrent
2025-09-30
equity
60,898,209
StockholdersEquity
2025-09-30
interest expense
6,553,627
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2025-09-30
ocf
-9,166,056
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-09-30
revenue
17,222,766
Revenues
2025-09-30
sbc
2,287,475
ShareBasedCompensation
2025-09-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
EONR-WT on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-7.02
current ratio
0.35
current ratio reported
0.35
fcf margin
-53.34
interest cover
-0.84
operating margin
-31.82
owner earnings margin
-66.62
roic
-6.49
sbc pct revenue
13.28
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about EONR-WT's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-11-07 (296 days old, dei cover page); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
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
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`
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 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 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, sustained growth, 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 (valuation, durability, growth -- 55% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left