Every figure this model derived for NCRA, 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
0
PaymentsToAcquireOtherProductiveAssets
2025-12-31
cash
4,792,297
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
5,106,529
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
542,068
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
5,435,030
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
ocf
-4,033,209
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
6,942,099
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
720,798
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
NCRA on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
55.07
current ratio
9.42
current ratio reported
9.42
deferred revenue growth
116.67
dilution pct
7.98
ebit cagr
-31.07
fcf margin
-58.1
growth cv
1.24
operating margin
44.44
owner earnings margin
-68.48
roic
366.33
sbc pct revenue
10.38
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about NCRA's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
operating income last tagged 2023-12-31, 912 days before the revenue period (2026-06-30); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus OperatingExpenses
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 5M of net cash against a 4M annual burn is 1.2 years
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: contracted coverage
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue 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
no interest expense tagged while 0M of debt is on the balance sheet, so interest cover is unmeasured rather than perfect