XBRL 2.0

Digital financial reporting that actually works


AsReported.com has revised and updated its XBRL QUALITY SCORE, adding a measure and modifying another. I recorded a screencast to explain the scoring through examples.


The scoring can be aggregated by any company or document attribute. Here it's by filing software...

By exchange...

Top 10 industries...

Bottom 10 industries...

This scoring should be viewed as a barometer of the quality and usability of XBRL filings from the perspective of the user. These tests directly or indirectly incorporate most other quality tests (i.e. XBRL-US DCQ, AICPA’s Consistency Suite, and Hoffman’s Fundamental Accounting Concept Relations), but from the viewpoint of investors and analysts.

The components of the XBRL QUALITY SCORE are as follows:

  • Tagging Error - Taxonomy
  • Tagging Error - Block
  • Tagging Error - Period Type
  • Missing Calculation Arcs
  • Invalid Subtotals
  • Missing Rollups
  • Signage Errors
  • Invalid Labels

All tests except ‘Invalid Labels’ are made against the primary (or facing) statements – income statement, balance sheet and cash flow. All labels used in the filing are tested for validity.

The number of extensions (custom elements) used in the primary statements is deducted from the XBRL QUALITY SCORE to arrive at the XBRL USABILITY SCORE. Extensions are overused, often unnecessary and, while allowed by the SEC, undermine the comparability of financial data. They are a design flaw that any serious consumer of XBRL data must grapple with.

Development is underway for an interactive scoring page to the AsReported.com website.