Every figure this model derived for IBKR, 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
cash
7,711,000,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
5,904,000,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
4,396,000,000
InterestPaidNet
2026-06-30
ocf
15,915,000,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
6,863,000,000
RevenuesNetOfInterestExpense
2026-06-30
sbc
124,000,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
IBKR on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
dilution pct
1.8
ev owner earnings
2.26
ev sales
5.21
fcf margin
231.9
growth cv
0.42
owner earnings margin
230.09
revenue growth
21.28
revenue growth per share
19.13
sbc pct revenue
1.81
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about IBKR's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
presents no operating result, and rebuilding it from the statement missed the reported pre-tax profit by 23.11% of revenue, so it is refused rather than used
no operating income found in XBRL
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
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 rests on 1 of 2 inputs; not tagged: ev ebit
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
4 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, durability, resilience, growth -- 75% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left