Every figure this model derived for NAVN, 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 2026-04-30.
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
NAVN on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
8.27
current ratio
5.02
current ratio reported
4.31
dilution pct
116.13
fcf margin
4.28
interest cover
-5.27
operating margin
-26.02
owner earnings margin
-22.14
roic
-23.11
sbc pct revenue
26.42
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about NAVN's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2026-04-30 (122 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 rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: worst year
growth DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue growth, sustained growth, margin recent 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