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 / 297.6K (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.
-12.41%
Negative revenue growth while RVPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-12.41%
Negative gross profit growth while RVPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-27.47%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-27.47%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-27.92%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-20.00%
Negative EPS growth while RVPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-20.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while RVPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
6.47%
Share reduction more than 1.5x RVPH's 43.34%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
6.47%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x RVPH's 43.34%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-21.90%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-21.77%
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.
-2645.13%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
92.60%
Positive OCF/share growth while RVPH is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
85.56%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-3055.33%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
92.82%
Positive 5Y CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
82.14%
Positive short-term CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1796.75%
Equity/share CAGR of 1796.75% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-58.41%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while RVPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
18.52%
Equity/share CAGR of 18.52% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
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.
0.03%
Positive asset growth while RVPH is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-6.32%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-20.42%
We’re deleveraging while RVPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
29.66%
R&D dropping or stable vs. RVPH's 280.24%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
16.61%
We expand SG&A while RVPH cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.