Every figure this model derived for MPU, 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 2025-12-31.
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
7,301,500
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2025-12-31
current assets
17,667,400
AssetsCurrent
2025-12-31
equity
18,071,800
StockholdersEquity
2025-12-31
interest expense
101,900
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2025-12-31
ocf
-9,905,900
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-12-31
revenue
26,105,600
Revenues
2025-12-31
sbc
10,725,900
ShareBasedCompensation
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
MPU on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-50.6
deferred revenue growth
-17.05
dilution pct
20.34
fcf margin
-37.95
interest cover
-283.91
operating margin
-110.82
owner earnings margin
-79.03
revenue growth
-27.85
revenue growth per share
-40.05
roic
-212.2
rule of 40
-138.67
sbc pct revenue
41.09
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about MPU'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
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-12-31 (242 days old, weighted average diluted); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
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 DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, gross margin stability, cash flow stability 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
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability, growth -- 55% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left