Every figure this model derived for STAA, 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 2026-07-03.
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
3,497,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-07-03
cash
181,489,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-07-03
current assets
342,353,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-07-03
current liabilities
73,394,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-07-03
equity
365,398,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-07-03
ocf
-3,252,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-07-03
revenue
339,590,000
Revenues
2026-07-03
sbc
28,154,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-07-03
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
STAA on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
14.84
current ratio
4.66
current ratio reported
4.66
dilution pct
0.89
ebit cagr
-28.16
fcf margin
-1.99
growth cv
2.26
operating margin
4.04
owner earnings margin
-10.28
revenue growth
51.3
revenue growth per share
49.97
roic
5.9
rule of 40
55.34
sbc pct revenue
8.29
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about STAA'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
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: margin recent