WeShop Holdings Ltd (WSHP)

Every figure this model derived for WSHP, 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 2025-12-31.

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 ratios

The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up WSHP on one particular measure came for.

Everything else this filing tags

83 more elements from WSHP's own XBRL that this model has no measure for, newest reading each, largest first. Nothing here is converted, added up or renamed — it is the filing's own element names and the filing's own numbers.

What to be careful about

What this model itself distrusts about WSHP's figures. Written by the derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.

• WITHHELD: operating margin, sbc pct revenue, owner earnings margin, net margin, ebitda margin -- net margin came out at -14,973% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 422,859 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
• revenue is annual, not TTM
• operating income is annual, not TTM
• reports in GBP and quotes in USD, so the share price is converted at 1 USD = 0.7595 GBP as at 2026-10-14. Only the price is converted: every figure from the filing is as reported, and only the multiples built on market capitalisation carry the rate
• gross profit not tagged; rebuilt from RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax - CostOfRevenue
• there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (67.4x) instead
• analyst estimate not used: trailing EPS is not positive, so a growth rate would be meaningless
• quality DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, sbc discipline, owner earnings not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
• durability DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage, gross margin stability, cash flow stability 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
• 2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, durability -- 40% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left