Every figure this model derived for GNL, 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
17,203,000
PaymentsToAcquireOtherPropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
153,640,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
1,509,103,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
165,944,000
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-06-30
ocf
218,387,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
459,727,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
14,067,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
GNL on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
80.19
dilution pct
-3.12
ebit cagr
18.54
ebit yoy
118.1
ev ebit
9.78
ev owner earnings
9.52
ev sales
3.88
fcf margin
43.76
growth cv
1.59
interest cover
1.1
operating margin
39.64
owner earnings margin
40.7
revenue growth
-13.87
revenue growth per share
-11.1
roic
10.62
rule of 40
25.77
sbc pct revenue
3.06
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about GNL's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
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