Every figure this model derived for PXLW, 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 2025-12-31.
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
342,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
52,888,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
53,413,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
1,502,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
51,981,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
80,000
InterestPaidNet
2026-06-30
ocf
-15,633,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
693,000
Revenues
2025-12-31
sbc
2,511,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
PXLW on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-1315.87
current ratio
35.56
current ratio reported
35.56
dilution pct
13.29
fcf margin
-2305.19
interest cover
-177.82
operating margin
-2052.81
revenue growth
0.43
revenue growth per share
-11.34
rpo growth
-80.0
rule of 40
-2052.38
sbc pct revenue
362.34
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about PXLW's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: owner earnings margin, net margin, ocf margin -- net margin came out at 10,066% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 693,000 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
revenue is annual, not TTM
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`
quality rests on 3 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic, owner earnings
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: contracted coverage