Every figure this model derived for NTSK, 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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
22,920,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-01-31
cash
1,103,188,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-04-30
current assets
1,371,359,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-04-30
current liabilities
632,268,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-04-30
equity
175,516,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-04-30
interest expense
0
InterestPaidNet
2026-01-31
ocf
38,073,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-01-31
revenue
752,853,000
Revenues
2026-04-30
sbc
582,814,000
AllocatedShareBasedCompensationExpense
2026-04-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
NTSK on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-13.65
current ratio
12.28
current ratio reported
2.17
deferred revenue growth
20.88
dilution pct
119.46
fcf margin
2.01
operating margin
-95.1
owner earnings margin
-75.4
sbc pct revenue
77.41
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about NTSK'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`
quality rests on 4 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic
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
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: interest cover
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