Every figure this model derived for MNOV, 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
MNOV on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-1185.08
current ratio
8.75
current ratio reported
8.75
deferred revenue growth
-100.0
dilution pct
0.04
fcf margin
-991.22
growth cv
1.74
operating margin
-1287.41
owner earnings margin
-1091.47
sbc pct revenue
100.25
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about MNOV's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 65M of net cash against a 9M annual burn is 7.2 years
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`
quality rests on 4 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic
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: gross margin stability
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, margin trend 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