Every figure this model derived for INFQ, 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
INFQ on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-76.13
current ratio
9.82
current ratio reported
9.34
dilution pct
16.03
ev owner earnings
-127.53
ev sales
58.61
fcf margin
3.6
operating margin
-130.38
owner earnings margin
-45.95
roic
-43.43
sbc pct revenue
49.56
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about INFQ's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (58.6x) instead
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 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, gross margin stability, cash flow 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: interest cover
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, sustained growth 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