Every figure this model derived for LEAT, 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
capex
1,223,340
PaymentsToAcquireProductiveAssets
2026-06-30
cash
19,384,885
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
47,643,699
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
6,464,562
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
45,180,738
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
50,202
InterestPaidNet
2026-06-30
ocf
5,132,356
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
66,262,141
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
571,568
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
LEAT on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
10.09
current ratio
7.37
current ratio reported
7.37
dilution pct
-0.37
ebit cagr
-25.5
ebit yoy
162.55
fcf margin
5.9
growth cv
2.43
interest cover
92.64
operating margin
7.02
owner earnings margin
5.04
revenue growth
20.74
revenue growth per share
21.19
roic
14.24
rule of 40
27.76
sbc pct revenue
0.86
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about LEAT's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
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