Every figure this model derived for IFRX, 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
IFRX on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
4.13
current ratio reported
4.13
dilution pct
14.21
revenue growth
-82.31
revenue growth per share
-84.51
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about IFRX's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: sbc pct revenue, owner earnings margin, fcf margin, gross margin, net margin, ocf margin -- net margin came out at -155,582% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 29,331 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
operating income last tagged 2023-12-31, 731 days before the revenue period (2025-12-31); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
presents no operating result; summing the costs it tags misses its own pre-tax profit by 43116.4% of revenue, far more than interest can explain, so a cost line it does not tag is missing and the sum was refused rather than used
revenue is annual, not TTM
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
reports in EUR and no currency is recorded for its share price, so the two cannot be shown to match. The price refresh records one; until it has run for this company the multiples are left out rather than assumed comparable
share count is from 2025-12-31 (242 days old, dei cover page); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 93M of net cash against a 35M annual burn is 2.6 years
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 0 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, sbc discipline, owner earnings, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
valuation DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 2 inputs could be computed (ev ebit, ev owner earnings not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
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
4 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, growth -- 85% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left