Every figure this model derived for RZC, 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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
0
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2023-09-30
cash
5,666,000,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
equity
13,694,000,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
396,000,000
InterestExpense
2026-06-30
ocf
2,983,000,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
25,970,000,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
58,000,000
AllocatedShareBasedCompensationExpense
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
RZC on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
7.61
dilution pct
-0.15
ebit cagr
31.61
ebit yoy
63.27
fcf margin
11.49
growth cv
0.72
interest cover
4.74
net debt ebitda
0.02
operating margin
7.22
owner earnings margin
11.26
revenue growth
19.4
revenue growth per share
19.58
roic
10.79
rule of 40
26.62
sbc pct revenue
0.22
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about RZC's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus BenefitsLossesAndExpenses
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2023-09-30); 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 (contracted coverage, gross margin stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity
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