Every figure this model derived for TULP, 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 2026-03-31.
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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
TULP on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
1.42
current ratio
1.26
current ratio reported
1.26
deferred revenue growth
91.69
fcf margin
-10.88
growth cv
4.34
interest cover
-1.51
net debt ebitda
62.58
operating margin
-5.79
owner earnings margin
-10.99
revenue growth
17.36
revenue growth per share
17.36
roic
-4.85
rule of 40
11.57
sbc pct revenue
0.11
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about TULP's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2026-05-08 (114 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
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