Every figure this model derived for RDGL, 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
RDGL on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
48.85
current ratio reported
48.85
deferred revenue growth
-100.0
dilution pct
10.52
fcf margin
-2291.31
growth cv
0.92
revenue growth
91.52
revenue growth per share
73.3
rule of 40
-2760.94
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about RDGL's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, owner earnings margin, net margin, ebitda margin -- net margin came out at -3,634% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 99,099 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
no current stock compensation tagged (last tagged 2021-12-31); treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 3M of net cash against a 2M annual burn is 1.4 years
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 DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, owner earnings, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
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
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation -- 55% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left