Every figure this model derived for SPHR, 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
2022-12-31
cash
550,974,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
784,043,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
640,412,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
2,227,858,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
ocf
398,640,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
1,356,845,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
50,192,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
SPHR on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
17.12
current ratio
1.63
current ratio reported
1.22
deferred revenue growth
90.37
fcf margin
29.38
growth cv
6.99
net debt ebitda
0.86
operating margin
-11.41
owner earnings margin
25.68
revenue growth
23.41
revenue growth per share
23.41
roic
-5.13
rpo growth
66.39
rule of 40
12.0
sbc pct revenue
3.7
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about SPHR's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2022-12-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
no usable diluted share count, so growth is measured on total revenue rather than per share; a company issuing shares to fund that growth reads better than it is
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 (gross margin stability, cash flow 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
no interest expense tagged while 708M of debt is on the balance sheet, so interest cover is unmeasured rather than perfect