Every figure this model derived for NXNT, 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
39,362
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
489,216
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
1,290,588
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
1,775,262
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
2,143,308
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
56,267
InterestExpenseDebt
2026-06-30
ocf
-196,386
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-03-31
revenue
1,110,112
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
57,749
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
NXNT on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-38.72
current ratio
0.73
current ratio reported
0.73
fcf margin
-21.24
interest cover
-8.81
operating margin
-44.64
owner earnings margin
-26.44
roic
-11.2
sbc pct revenue
5.2
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about NXNT's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
no usable diluted share count, so growth is measured on total revenue rather than per share; a company issuing shares to fund that growth reads better than it is
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 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage, 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 (revenue growth, sustained growth, margin trend 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