Every figure this model derived for RAY, 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 2026-03-31.
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
cash
9,953,175
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-03-31
current assets
21,503,418
AssetsCurrent
2026-03-31
current liabilities
9,121,649
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-03-31
equity
16,524,665
StockholdersEquity
2026-03-31
interest expense
31,050
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-03-31
ocf
-1,850,928
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-03-31
revenue
18,192,485
Revenues
2026-03-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
RAY on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
12.64
current ratio
2.38
current ratio reported
2.36
deferred revenue growth
56.21
dilution pct
113.46
ebit cagr
25.89
ebit yoy
133.93
fcf margin
-10.17
interest cover
74.07
operating margin
12.64
owner earnings margin
-10.17
revenue growth
79.75
revenue growth per share
-15.79
roic
27.65
rule of 40
92.39
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about RAY's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
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 (worst year, gross margin stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth
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