Every figure this model derived for PJT, 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
51,192,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
235,541,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
312,059,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
0
InterestPaidNet
2025-12-31
ocf
713,017,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
1,886,750,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
236,691,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
PJT on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
34.35
ebit cagr
21.35
ebit yoy
40.88
fcf margin
35.08
growth cv
1.09
operating margin
21.01
owner earnings margin
22.53
revenue growth
22.91
revenue growth per share
22.91
roic
409.2
rule of 40
43.92
sbc pct revenue
12.54
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about PJT's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus CostsAndExpenses
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 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 rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability -- 35% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left