Every figure this model derived for PW, 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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
PW on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-33.43
current ratio
0.01
current ratio reported
0.01
deferred revenue growth
-7.97
dilution pct
0.71
ev owner earnings
16.69
ev sales
7.1
fcf margin
54.49
growth cv
10.57
interest cover
-1.37
operating margin
-47.49
owner earnings margin
42.51
revenue growth
-6.66
revenue growth per share
-7.32
roic
-4.83
rule of 40
-54.15
sbc pct revenue
11.98
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about PW's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
operating income last tagged 2023-12-31, 912 days before the revenue period (2026-06-30); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus CostsAndExpenses
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2023-12-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (7.1x) instead
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 (contracted coverage, gross margin stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions