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.
-100.00%
Negative revenue growth while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
100.00%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x TRAW's 1.92%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
-2.59%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-2.59%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-10.34%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-10.26%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-10.26%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.08%
Share count expansion well above TRAW's 0.16%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.08%
Diluted share count expanding well above TRAW's 0.16%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-93.84%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-94.42%
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.
81.91%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of TRAW's 99.99%. Bill Ackman would demand strategic changes to close the gap in long-term cash generation.
68.32%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of TRAW's 99.74%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
41.88%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of TRAW's 64.15%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
55.55%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of TRAW's 99.99%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
79.95%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of TRAW's 99.64%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
56.07%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TRAW's 42.16%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
188.20%
Positive growth while TRAW is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
-69.82%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while TRAW is at 100.95%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
327.49%
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.
-10.65%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-14.02%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-4.69%
We’re deleveraging while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
7.04%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. TRAW's 8.25%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-5.63%
We cut SG&A while TRAW invests at 4.76%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.