Every figure this model derived for MWH, 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
15,960,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
363,968,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
1,051,839,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
961,645,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
496,781,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
8,299,000
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-06-30
ocf
46,039,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
1,628,048,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
79,670,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
MWH on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
11.83
current ratio
1.5
current ratio reported
1.09
fcf margin
1.85
interest cover
7.53
operating margin
3.84
owner earnings margin
-3.05
revenue growth
72.5
revenue growth per share
72.5
rule of 40
76.34
sbc pct revenue
4.89
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about MWH's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
only 180 days of filings, not a full year: margins and growth are measured, but return on capital and every enterprise-value multiple are refused rather than annualised
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
no usable diluted share count, so growth is measured on total revenue rather than per share; a company issuing shares to fund that growth reads better than it is
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 ebit, 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 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage, gross margin stability, cash flow stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend, margin recent 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