Every figure this model derived for GSK, 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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
GSK on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
32.56
current ratio
0.82
current ratio reported
0.82
ev ebit
21.99
ev owner earnings
29.06
ev sales
5.34
fcf margin
19.57
interest cover
11.32
net debt ebitda
1.45
operating margin
24.28
owner earnings margin
18.38
revenue growth
4.11
revenue growth per share
4.11
roic
20.06
rule of 40
28.4
sbc pct revenue
1.19
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about GSK's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
reports in GBP and quotes in USD, so the share price is converted at 1 USD = 0.7357 GBP as at 2026-08-28. Only the price is converted: every figure from the filing is as reported, and only the multiples built on market capitalisation carry the rate
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`
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 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (durability, growth -- 30% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left