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.
-168.99%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-230.56%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-176.90%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
89.62%
Positive EPS growth while TRAW is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
89.62%
Positive diluted EPS growth while TRAW is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
2567.99%
Share change of 2567.99% while TRAW is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
2567.99%
Slight or no buyback while TRAW is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-298628.16%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-217028.56%
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.
-67594.88%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-60146.79%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while TRAW is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-86002.39%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-51844.29%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while TRAW is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-93706.66%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while TRAW is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-45701.99%
Negative 3Y CAGR while TRAW is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
3346.07%
Equity/share CAGR of 3346.07% while TRAW is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
1899.20%
Equity/share CAGR of 1899.20% while TRAW is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
720.41%
Equity/share CAGR of 720.41% while TRAW 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.
104.51%
Asset growth of 104.51% while TRAW is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
-98.43%
We have a declining book value while TRAW shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
92.16%
Debt growth of 92.16% while TRAW is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-30.73%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
522.30%
We expand SG&A while TRAW cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.