Every figure this model derived for VG, 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
VG on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
43.63
current ratio
1.19
current ratio reported
1.19
dilution pct
1.94
ebit cagr
11.59
ebit yoy
119.82
ev ebit
12.15
ev owner earnings
-11.01
ev sales
4.57
fcf margin
-41.24
interest cover
3.54
net debt ebitda
5.34
operating margin
37.62
owner earnings margin
-41.53
revenue growth
100.72
revenue growth per share
96.91
roic
10.54
rule of 40
138.34
sbc pct revenue
0.29
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about VG's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
gross profit not tagged; rebuilt from RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax - CostOfGoodsAndServiceExcludingDepreciationDepletionAndAmortization - dep_amort
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`
durability DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: sustained growth