Every figure this model derived for SATA, 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 2025-06-30.
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
24,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2024-12-31
cash
145,466,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
192,569,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
25,262,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
646,155,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
0
InterestPaidNet
2025-12-31
ocf
-21,595,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2024-12-31
revenue
759,690
Revenues
2025-06-30
sbc
0
ShareBasedCompensation
2024-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
SATA on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
7.62
current ratio reported
7.62
deferred revenue growth
-73.49
dilution pct
-16.87
growth cv
1.56
revenue growth
111.73
revenue growth per share
154.69
roic
-3.57
rule of 40
-2870.27
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about SATA's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, owner earnings margin, fcf margin, net margin, ocf margin, ebitda margin -- operating margin came out at -2,982% against a scale that tops out near 2,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 759,690 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
operating income is annual, not TTM
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: 145M of net cash against a 22M annual burn is 6.7 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 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, 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: gross margin stability
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth
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