Every figure this model derived for JNJ, 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 2026-06-28.
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
JNJ on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
36.17
current ratio
1.09
current ratio reported
1.09
dilution pct
0.0
ev ebit
25.5
ev owner earnings
32.15
ev sales
6.84
fcf margin
22.71
growth cv
1.48
interest cover
25.94
net debt ebitda
0.86
operating margin
26.81
owner earnings margin
21.27
revenue growth
8.06
revenue growth per share
8.06
roic
18.17
rule of 40
34.87
sbc pct revenue
1.44
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about JNJ's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
operating income last tagged 2015-03-29, 4109 days before the revenue period (2026-06-28); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
presents no operating result; summed as revenue minus the costs it does tag (CostOfGoodsAndServicesSold, SellingGeneralAndAdministrativeExpense, ResearchAndDevelopmentExpenseExcludingAcquiredInProcessCost). Checked against the company's own figures: the answer lands 1.1% of revenue from the 25,196M pre-tax profit it reports, which is its interest and other non-operating items
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 rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: contracted coverage
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