Every figure this model derived for ZIVO, 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 2025-09-30.
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
ZIVO on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
0.08
current ratio reported
0.08
deferred revenue growth
-100.0
dilution pct
87.16
fcf margin
-1472.99
interest cover
-714.41
revenue growth
164.52
revenue growth per share
41.33
rule of 40
-3881.13
sbc pct revenue
722.92
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ZIVO's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, owner earnings margin, net margin -- net margin came out at -4,060% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 209,025 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2013-12-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-11-09 (294 days old, dei cover page); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
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 DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, owner earnings, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
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 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage, gross margin 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: margin trend
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability -- 65% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left