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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-272.88%
Negative EBIT growth while TRAW is at 11.19%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-59.22%
Negative operating income growth while TRAW is at 11.19%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-272.88%
Negative net income growth while TRAW stands at 11.19%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-252.38%
Negative EPS growth while TRAW is at 11.32%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-313.33%
Negative diluted EPS growth while TRAW is at 11.32%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
10.47%
Share count expansion well above TRAW's 0.15%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-20.54%
Reduced diluted shares while TRAW is at 0.15%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-64.88%
Negative OCF growth while TRAW is at 5.90%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-57.97%
Negative FCF growth while TRAW is at 6.89%. 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.
-16444.97%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-31629.64%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-47124.26%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-24144.03%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-61703.68%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-67595.61%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1169.73%
Equity/share CAGR of 1169.73% while TRAW is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
1236.68%
Equity/share CAGR of 1236.68% 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.
-18.44%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-50.41%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-100.00%
We’re deleveraging while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
88.49%
We increase R&D while TRAW cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
34.89%
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.