Scienture Holdings, Inc. (SCNX)

Every figure this model derived for SCNX, 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 2025-12-31.

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
capex	12,000	`PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment`	2024-12-31
cash	8,188,140	`CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue`	2026-06-30
current assets	9,201,897	`AssetsCurrent`	2026-06-30
current liabilities	3,026,300	`LiabilitiesCurrent`	2026-06-30
equity	64,101,526	`StockholdersEquity`	2026-06-30
interest expense	3,065,733	`InterestExpenseNonoperating`	2026-06-30
ocf	-14,440,576	`NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities`	2026-06-30
revenue	431,609	`RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax`	2025-12-31
sbc	2,111,795	`ShareBasedCompensation`	2026-06-30

The ratios

The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up SCNX on one particular measure came for.

Ratio	Value
current ratio	3.04
current ratio reported	3.04
deferred revenue growth	-90.04
dilution pct	320.47
growth cv	950.43
interest cover	-13.07
revenue growth	215.87
revenue growth per share	-24.88
roic	-56.62
rule of 40	-9068.2
sbc pct revenue	489.28

What to be careful about

What this model itself distrusts about SCNX'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 -9,284% against a scale that tops out near 2,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 431,609 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
revenue is annual, not TTM
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`
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: 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