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.
-90.13%
Negative revenue growth while RVPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-148.93%
Negative gross profit growth while RVPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-24.41%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-24.41%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-24.71%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-23.33%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-23.33%
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.
9.59%
Positive OCF growth while RVPH is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
10.68%
Positive FCF growth while RVPH is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
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.
-1874.89%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
89.77%
Positive OCF/share growth while RVPH is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
79.09%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-5123.81%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
89.73%
Positive 5Y CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
77.51%
Positive short-term CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1605.51%
Equity/share CAGR of 1605.51% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-64.94%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while RVPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
48.08%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x RVPH's 16.33%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
-4.84%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-8.40%
We have a declining book value while RVPH shows 27.43%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-26.37%
We’re deleveraging while RVPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
15.04%
R&D dropping or stable vs. RVPH's 87.08%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
33.15%
SG&A growth well above RVPH's 23.58%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.