Every figure this model derived for OXBRW, 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
16,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-12-31
cash
4,111,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
6,586,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
ocf
494,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
2,784,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
367,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
OXBRW on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
2.37
dilution pct
21.18
fcf margin
17.17
operating margin
-10.85
owner earnings margin
3.99
revenue growth
40.39
revenue growth per share
15.86
roic
-8.8
rule of 40
29.55
sbc pct revenue
13.18
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about OXBRW's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus OperatingExpenses
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
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 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (contracted coverage, gross margin stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
resilience DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 3 inputs could be computed (interest cover, liquidity 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, resilience -- 50% 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