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.
153.33%
Positive revenue growth while TRAW is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
73.30%
Positive gross profit growth while TRAW is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-15.23%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-15.23%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-9.33%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-5.41%
Negative EPS growth while TRAW is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-8.33%
Negative diluted EPS growth while TRAW is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
2.98%
Share count expansion well above TRAW's 0.05%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
2.03%
Diluted share count expanding well above TRAW's 0.05%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-36.10%
Negative OCF growth while TRAW is at 0.41%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-34.66%
Negative FCF growth while TRAW is at 0.41%. 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.
95.84%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with TRAW's 100.00%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
71.82%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of TRAW's 99.79%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
66.77%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of TRAW's 79.83%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
96.67%
Similar net income/share CAGR to TRAW's 99.98%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
77.76%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of TRAW's 99.78%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
53.48%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of TRAW's 73.75%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
61.16%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of TRAW's 100.01%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
-44.17%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while TRAW is at 100.62%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
152.11%
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.
-100.00%
Negative near-term dividend growth while TRAW invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-2.25%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-9.40%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.77%
We’re deleveraging while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
8.30%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. TRAW's 4.99%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
28.80%
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.