Every figure this model derived for RGTIW, 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
RGTIW on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-482.6
current ratio
4.07
current ratio reported
3.94
deferred revenue growth
2710.17
dilution pct
67.8
fcf margin
-655.9
operating margin
-727.62
owner earnings margin
-826.55
revenue growth
68.49
revenue growth per share
0.41
roic
-86.42
rpo growth
-52.63
rule of 40
-659.13
sbc pct revenue
170.65
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about RGTIW's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: net margin -- net margin came out at -1,787% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 13,353,000 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
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: 449M of net cash against a 88M annual burn is 5.1 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`
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
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth