Every figure this model derived for ZAL.OL, 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 2024-12-31.
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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
cash
221,751,000
CashAndCashEquivalents
2025-01-01
current assets
467,095,000
CurrentAssets
2023-01-01
current liabilities
669,586,000
CurrentLiabilities
2023-01-01
equity
263,470,000
EquityAttributableToOwnersOfParent
2025-01-01
interest expense
59,185,000
FinanceCosts
2024-12-31
ocf
131,470,000
CashFlowsFromUsedInOperatingActivities
2024-12-31
revenue
1,346,282,000
RevenueFromContractsWithCustomers
2024-12-31
sbc
13,083,000
AdjustmentsForSharebasedPayments
2024-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ZAL.OL on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
9.41
current ratio
0.7
current ratio reported
0.7
fcf margin
9.77
interest cover
1.92
net debt ebitda
2.13
operating margin
8.44
owner earnings margin
8.79
revenue growth
18.72
revenue growth per share
18.72
roic
17.75
rule of 40
27.16
sbc pct revenue
0.97
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ZAL.OL's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
newest fact in the filing is 2025-01-01 (1y old); this company's data is not usable and the scores below should be ignored
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
revenue period ends 2024-12-31 (605 days ago) - the tag chain found nothing recent, so treat this row as unscored
no current capital expenditure tagged; treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
no usable diluted share count, so growth is measured on total revenue rather than per share; a company issuing shares to fund that growth reads better than it is
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 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 DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, 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 (valuation, durability, growth -- 55% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left