Every figure this model derived for WAT, 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 2026-07-04.
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
112,745,000
PaymentsToAcquireProductiveAssets
2025-12-31
cash
539,934,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-07-04
current assets
4,465,000,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-07-04
current liabilities
2,399,000,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-07-04
equity
15,195,000,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-07-04
interest expense
69,548,000
InterestExpense
2025-12-31
ocf
549,555,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-07-04
revenue
2,912,000,000
Revenues
2026-07-04
sbc
73,127,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-07-04
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
WAT on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
34.03
current ratio
1.86
current ratio reported
1.86
dilution pct
0.26
ebit cagr
-2.38
ebit yoy
-2.88
fcf margin
15.0
growth cv
1.06
interest cover
11.54
operating margin
27.56
owner earnings margin
12.49
revenue growth
103.21
revenue growth per share
102.69
rpo growth
48.27
rule of 40
130.77
sbc pct revenue
2.51
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about WAT's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
only 184 days of filings, not a full year: margins and growth are measured, but return on capital and every enterprise-value multiple are refused rather than annualised
operating income is annual, not TTM
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
gross profit not tagged since 2016-07-02; rebuilt from Revenues - CostOfGoodsAndServicesSold
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 rests on 4 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic
valuation DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 2 inputs could be computed (ev ebit, 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