Every figure this model derived for MUSA, 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
MUSA on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
5.75
current ratio
0.92
current ratio reported
0.92
dilution pct
-6.32
ebit cagr
-1.41
ebit yoy
26.6
fcf margin
2.52
growth cv
1.81
interest cover
7.94
net debt ebitda
1.66
operating margin
4.29
owner earnings margin
2.39
revenue growth
10.27
revenue growth per share
17.7
roic
26.06
rule of 40
14.56
sbc pct revenue
0.13
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about MUSA'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
durability DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (contracted coverage, gross margin stability 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, durability -- 35% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left