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 TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-12.41%
Negative gross profit growth while TRAW is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-27.47%
Negative EBIT growth while TRAW is at 14.10%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-27.47%
Negative operating income growth while TRAW is at 14.10%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-27.92%
Negative net income growth while TRAW stands at 18.39%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-20.00%
Negative EPS growth while TRAW is at 18.52%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-20.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while TRAW is at 18.52%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
6.47%
Share count expansion well above TRAW's 1.26%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
6.47%
Diluted share count expanding well above TRAW's 1.26%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-21.90%
Negative OCF growth while TRAW is at 0.93%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-21.77%
Negative FCF growth while TRAW is at 0.93%. 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.
-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%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to TRAW's 99.77%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
85.56%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of TRAW's 98.59%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
-3055.33%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while TRAW is at 99.90%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
92.82%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to TRAW's 99.67%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
82.14%
3Y net income/share CAGR 75-90% of TRAW's 98.47%. Bill Ackman might push for an operational plan to match or beat the competitor’s short-term growth.
1796.75%
Equity/share CAGR of 1796.75% while TRAW is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-58.41%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
18.52%
Positive short-term equity growth while TRAW is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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%
Asset growth well under 50% of TRAW's 35.18%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-6.32%
We have a declining book value while TRAW shows 48.67%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-20.42%
We’re deleveraging while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
29.66%
We increase R&D while TRAW cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
16.61%
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.