Every figure this model derived for GL, 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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
GL on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
8.57
dilution pct
-7.96
ebit cagr
19.33
ebit yoy
66.71
ev ebit
46.46
ev owner earnings
13.62
ev sales
3.17
fcf margin
24.45
growth cv
0.25
interest cover
2.44
net debt ebitda
6.65
operating margin
6.83
owner earnings margin
23.3
revenue growth
5.65
revenue growth per share
14.79
roic
3.15
rule of 40
12.48
sbc pct revenue
1.15
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about GL's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
operating income last tagged 2024-09-30, 638 days before the revenue period (2026-06-30); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus BenefitsLossesAndExpenses
gross profit last tagged 2024-09-30 and no cost of sales line to rebuild it from; dropped from durability
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`
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 rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity