SODEXO (SW.PA)
Every figure this model derived for SW.PA, 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 2025-08-31.
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 | 0 | PurchaseOfPropertyPlantAndEquipmentClassifiedAsInvestingActivities |
2022-08-31 |
| cash | 2,091,000,000 | CashAndCashEquivalents |
2025-09-01 |
| current assets | 6,325,000,000 | CurrentAssets |
2025-09-01 |
| current liabilities | 5,838,000,000 | CurrentLiabilities |
2025-09-01 |
| equity | 3,786,000,000 | EquityAttributableToOwnersOfParent |
2025-09-01 |
| interest expense | 178,000,000 | FinanceCosts |
2025-08-31 |
| ocf | 964,000,000 | CashFlowsFromUsedInOperatingActivities |
2025-08-31 |
| revenue | 24,074,000,000 | Revenue |
2025-08-31 |
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up SW.PA on one particular measure came for.
| Ratio | Value |
|---|---|
| current ratio | 1.08 |
| current ratio reported | 1.08 |
| ev owner earnings | 6.61 |
| ev sales | 0.26 |
| fcf margin | 4.0 |
| growth cv | 0.87 |
| owner earnings margin | 4.0 |
| revenue growth | 1.16 |
| revenue growth per share | 1.16 |
| sbc pct revenue | 0.0 |
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about SW.PA's figures. Written by the derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
- revenue is annual, not TTM
- no operating income found in XBRL
- no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
- no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2022-08-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
- share count is from 2025-09-01 (382 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 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
- forward EPS growth -16.3% is analyst consensus, not a filing: consensus 2027 EPS 3.35 against trailing 4.79, over 2 year(s), from 16 analysts (taken 2026-09-18)
- PEG not measured: earnings are expected to grow -16.3%, and the ratio inverts at or below zero — a company whose profit is expected to fall faster would otherwise score better for it
- quality DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
- valuation rests on 1 of 2 inputs; not tagged: ev ebit
- durability rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: contracted coverage
- resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: interest cover
- growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
- 2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, growth -- 50% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left