Every figure this model derived for LYFT, 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
1,794,515,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
2,859,413,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
4,880,471,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
3,023,646,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
20,269,000
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-06-30
ocf
1,195,080,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
6,771,939,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
310,439,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
LYFT on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
4.98
current ratio
0.59
current ratio reported
0.59
dilution pct
0.97
ev owner earnings
6.71
ev sales
0.88
fcf margin
17.65
growth cv
0.52
interest cover
-5.91
operating margin
-1.77
owner earnings margin
13.06
revenue growth
10.81
revenue growth per share
9.75
roic
-3.96
rule of 40
9.04
sbc pct revenue
4.58
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about LYFT'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
gross profit not tagged; rebuilt from Revenues - CostOfRevenue
there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (0.9x) 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 rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: contracted coverage