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.
-95.21%
Negative revenue growth while TRAW stands at 1.79%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-116.81%
Negative gross profit growth while TRAW is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-52.01%
Negative EBIT growth while TRAW is at 0.29%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-52.01%
Negative operating income growth while TRAW is at 0.29%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-52.47%
Negative net income growth while TRAW stands at 2.38%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-43.48%
Negative EPS growth while TRAW is at 5.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-43.48%
Negative diluted EPS growth while TRAW is at 5.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
7.17%
Share change of 7.17% while TRAW is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
7.17%
Diluted share change of 7.17% while TRAW is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
582.93%
OCF growth above 1.5x TRAW's 1.91%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
577.68%
FCF growth above 1.5x TRAW's 1.91%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
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.
9508.05%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TRAW's 99.98%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
131.96%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TRAW's 99.86%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
210.81%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TRAW's 98.37%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
88.12%
Net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of TRAW's 99.98%. Bill Ackman would press for strategic moves to boost long-term earnings.
91.00%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to TRAW's 99.70%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
67.11%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of TRAW's 97.86%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
1963.85%
Equity/share CAGR of 1963.85% while TRAW is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-27.97%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while TRAW is at 118.98%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
5.99%
Below 50% of TRAW's 116.06%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
63.35%
Positive asset growth while TRAW is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
5.97%
Positive BV/share change while TRAW is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
1244.16%
Debt growth of 1244.16% while TRAW is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
6.71%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. TRAW's 1.75%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
86.34%
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.