Every figure this model derived for MGRC, 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
42,156,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
4,379,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
1,245,459,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
28,282,000
InterestExpenseDebt
2026-06-30
ocf
251,681,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
932,857,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
11,582,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
MGRC on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
38.57
dilution pct
0.26
ebit cagr
14.65
ebit yoy
-1.22
fcf margin
22.46
growth cv
1.82
interest cover
8.4
operating margin
25.47
owner earnings margin
21.22
revenue growth
-0.92
revenue growth per share
-1.18
roic
15.12
rpo growth
-42.92
rule of 40
24.55
sbc pct revenue
1.24
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about MGRC'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
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity