Every figure this model derived for SLGL, 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
47,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-12-31
cash
23,999,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2025-12-31
current assets
26,971,000
AssetsCurrent
2025-12-31
current liabilities
6,171,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2025-12-31
equity
22,811,000
StockholdersEquity
2025-12-31
ocf
322,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-12-31
revenue
19,388,000
Revenues
2025-12-31
sbc
82,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
SLGL on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-37.89
current ratio
4.37
current ratio reported
4.37
dilution pct
0.0
fcf margin
1.42
growth cv
1.64
operating margin
-38.88
owner earnings margin
1.0
revenue growth
68.04
revenue growth per share
68.03
rule of 40
29.16
sbc pct revenue
0.42
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about SLGL's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-12-31 (242 days old, dei cover page); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
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 rests on 4 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic
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: interest cover
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