GLACIER BANCORP, INC. (GBCI)

Every figure this model derived for GBCI, 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	37,281,000	`PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment`	2026-06-30
cash	1,056,679,000	`CashCashEquivalentsRestrictedCashAndRestrictedCashEquivalents`	2026-06-30
equity	4,313,022,000	`StockholdersEquity`	2026-06-30
interest expense	391,308,000	`InterestPaidNet`	2026-06-30
ocf	444,551,000	`NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities`	2026-06-30
revenue	109,159,000	`RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax`	2026-06-30
sbc	9,454,000	`ShareBasedCompensation`	2026-06-30

The ratios

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

Ratio	Value
dilution pct	5.91
fcf margin	373.1
growth cv	0.63
owner earnings margin	364.44
revenue growth	14.28
revenue growth per share	7.9
sbc pct revenue	8.66

What to be careful about

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

no operating income found in XBRL
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
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 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, 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 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 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (contracted coverage, gross margin stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
resilience DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 3 inputs could be computed (interest cover, liquidity not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
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
5 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, resilience, growth -- 100% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left