Every figure this model derived for HALO, 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
HALO on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
32.87
current ratio
2.71
current ratio reported
2.71
deferred revenue growth
85.91
dilution pct
-4.27
ebit cagr
17.42
ebit yoy
-14.95
fcf margin
48.46
growth cv
0.4
interest cover
23.1
net debt ebitda
4.15
operating margin
28.19
owner earnings margin
44.67
revenue growth
41.15
revenue growth per share
47.45
roic
17.21
rule of 40
69.34
sbc pct revenue
3.79
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about HALO's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
operating income is annual, not TTM
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
gross profit not tagged since 2020-12-31; rebuilt from RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax - CostOfGoodsAndServicesSold
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`
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 rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: contracted coverage