Every figure this model derived for UWMC, 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 2026-06-30.
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
UWMC on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
37.53
current ratio
0.05
current ratio reported
0.05
dilution pct
1338.48
ebit cagr
8.11
ebit yoy
50.82
fcf margin
-137.57
interest cover
2.23
net debt ebitda
1.93
operating margin
34.31
owner earnings margin
-139.13
revenue growth
26.06
revenue growth per share
-91.24
roic
27.94
rule of 40
60.37
sbc pct revenue
1.56
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about UWMC's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
operating income last tagged 2020-12-31, 2007 days before the revenue period (2026-06-30); dropped rather than divided by current revenue
no operating income tagged; derived as revenue minus OperatingExpenses
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 DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (contracted coverage, gross margin stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability -- 35% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left