Every figure this model derived for NOA, 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 2025-12-31.
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
NOA on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
25.38
current ratio
0.93
current ratio reported
0.88
deferred revenue growth
1075.31
dilution pct
-2.38
fcf margin
-1.32
interest cover
1.88
net debt ebitda
2.48
operating margin
8.5
owner earnings margin
-1.29
revenue growth
10.17
revenue growth per share
12.86
roic
6.81
rule of 40
18.67
sbc pct revenue
-0.03
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about NOA's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
reports in CAD and no currency is recorded for its share price, so the two cannot be shown to match. The price refresh records one; until it has run for this company the multiples are left out rather than assumed comparable
share count is from 2025-12-31 (242 days old, dei cover page); 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 DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, 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