Every figure this model derived for UE, 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
UE on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
dilution pct
3.69
ev owner earnings
14.94
ev sales
5.42
fcf margin
38.91
growth cv
1.43
owner earnings margin
36.29
revenue growth
7.25
revenue growth per share
3.44
sbc pct revenue
2.63
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about UE's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
operating income last tagged 2018-12-31, 2647 days before the revenue period (2026-03-31); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
presents no operating result; summing the costs it tags misses its own pre-tax profit by 49.2% of revenue, far more than interest can explain, so a cost line it does not tag is missing and the sum was refused rather than used
presents no operating result, and rebuilding it from the statement missed the reported pre-tax profit by 95.22% of revenue, so it is refused rather than used
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
gross profit not tagged; rebuilt from Revenues - CostOfOtherPropertyOperatingExpense
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`
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 DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 3 inputs could be computed (interest cover, liquidity not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
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
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, resilience, growth -- 65% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left