Every figure this model derived for EPRX, 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
cash
80,563,482
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2025-12-31
current assets
85,098,550
AssetsCurrent
2025-12-31
current liabilities
5,628,005
LiabilitiesCurrent
2025-12-31
equity
82,041,436
StockholdersEquity
2025-12-31
interest expense
0
InterestExpense
2025-12-31
ocf
-28,552,218
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-12-31
revenue
0
Revenues
2025-12-31
sbc
8,756,107
ShareBasedCompensation
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
EPRX on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
15.12
current ratio reported
15.12
dilution pct
17.77
roic
-2054.39
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about EPRX's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus OperatingExpenses
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-12-31 (242 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: 81M of net cash against a 29M annual burn is 2.8 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 1 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, 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 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
4 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, growth -- 85% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left