Every figure this model derived for SPRS, 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 2026-05-31.
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
121,950
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-11-30
cash
15,031,914
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-05-31
current assets
26,981,901
AssetsCurrent
2026-05-31
current liabilities
5,887,544
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-05-31
equity
21,766,157
StockholdersEquity
2026-05-31
ocf
2,207,071
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-05-31
revenue
37,727,243
Revenues
2026-05-31
sbc
111,378
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-05-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
SPRS on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
4.4
current ratio
4.58
current ratio reported
4.58
dilution pct
0.73
ebit cagr
-27.99
ebit yoy
60.29
fcf margin
5.53
growth cv
4.18
operating margin
3.97
owner earnings margin
5.23
revenue growth
14.46
revenue growth per share
13.64
roic
17.56
rule of 40
18.43
sbc pct revenue
0.3
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about SPRS's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
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 rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: contracted coverage