Every figure this model derived for NP, 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
NP on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
63.82
current ratio
1.82
current ratio reported
1.05
dilution pct
11.96
ebit cagr
27.63
ebit yoy
-1.45
ev ebit
44.11
ev owner earnings
69.39
ev sales
20.47
fcf margin
45.2
interest cover
4.32
operating margin
46.4
owner earnings margin
29.49
revenue growth
33.74
revenue growth per share
19.46
rule of 40
80.14
sbc pct revenue
15.7
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about NP's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
revenue is annual, not TTM
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
invested capital is -240M (cash exceeds equity plus debt), so return on capital is unbounded rather than undefined; scored as maximal
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`
durability DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, gross margin stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth