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.
-20.40%
Negative EBIT growth while GNPX is at 36.56%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-20.40%
Negative operating income growth while GNPX is at 36.56%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-19.78%
Negative net income growth while GNPX stands at 36.55%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
12.20%
EPS growth under 50% of GNPX's 42.63%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
12.20%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of GNPX's 42.63%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
35.62%
Share count expansion well above GNPX's 10.53%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
35.62%
Diluted share count expanding well above GNPX's 10.46%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-10.71%
Negative OCF growth while GNPX is at 42.59%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-10.88%
Negative FCF growth while GNPX is at 42.37%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
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.
-812.85%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while GNPX stands at 27.05%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
87.84%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GNPX's 27.05%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
86.67%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GNPX's 6.29%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-1279.04%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while GNPX is at 79.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
88.03%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GNPX's 79.07%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
86.27%
Positive short-term CAGR while GNPX is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1371.24%
Equity/share CAGR of 1371.24% while GNPX is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-83.09%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while GNPX is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-60.87%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while GNPX is at 683.33%. 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.
-9.71%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-34.03%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-19.69%
We’re deleveraging while GNPX stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
7.98%
We increase R&D while GNPX cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
58.15%
We expand SG&A while GNPX cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.