Figures as at 2025-12-31, reported in EUR. The newest fact in the filings is dated 2026-01-01, 237 days ago. Nothing on this page is advice.

How it scores

Five questions, each answered by the measures under it. Every figure is the company's own; the bar beside it is where that figure sits among the companies read here — the top fifth, the bottom fifth, or somewhere between. Not among all listed companies, and for a valuation multiple the low end is the good end.

A measure absent from a block could not be computed from this company's filings. It is left out rather than scored as though it were bad, and the dimension is averaged over what remains. A score is measured against a fixed scale this model states; the bar is measured against the other companies, so the two can disagree — and where they do, that disagreement is the more interesting figure.

The ratios

The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up NANO.PA on one particular measure came for.

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.

What to be careful about

• revenue is annual, not TTM
• operating income is annual, not TTM
• 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
• there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (56.0x) instead
• 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

See it scored yourself

The dashboard puts NANO.PA beside other companies and lets you change what counts: the weight of each dimension, the value that earns a ten, and which of the 61 measures are included at all.