PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ATNM)
1.780.01 (-0.56%)
1.75 - 1.81
1.03 - 2.41
122.5K / 296.7K (Avg.)
-1.36 | -1.31
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-89.95%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-95.43%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-134.36%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-134.21%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-134.21%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-141.82%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-141.82%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-31.42%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AGEN stands at 49.32%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-31.42%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while AGEN is at 89.30%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-183.28%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AGEN stands at 59.23%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
1.36%
Below 50% of AGEN's 69.92%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
1.36%
Below 50% of AGEN's 84.78%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-52.35%
Negative 3Y CAGR while AGEN is 75.20%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-201.38%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while AGEN is at 70.24%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-99.57%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-12.67%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-28.84%
We’re deleveraging while AGEN stands at 0.62%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
60.35%
We expand SG&A while AGEN cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.