Every figure this model derived for MLR, 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
MLR on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
5.33
current ratio
2.46
current ratio reported
2.46
deferred revenue growth
-11.68
dilution pct
0.11
fcf margin
14.61
growth cv
3.34
interest cover
28.69
operating margin
2.86
owner earnings margin
14.15
revenue growth
-20.95
revenue growth per share
-21.04
roic
4.74
rule of 40
-18.09
sbc pct revenue
0.47
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about MLR's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
operating income last tagged 2020-12-31, 2007 days before the revenue period (2026-06-30); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
presents no operating result; summed as revenue minus the costs it does tag (CostOfGoodsAndServicesSold, SellingGeneralAndAdministrativeExpense). Checked against the company's own figures: the answer lands 0.1% of revenue from the 21M pre-tax profit it reports, which is its interest and other non-operating items
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
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
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, growth -- 45% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left