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.
12.50%
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.
-29.39%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-29.39%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-30.95%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-22.58%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-22.58%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
7.95%
Share reduction more than 1.5x TRAW's 20.28%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
7.95%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x TRAW's 20.28%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-8.11%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-7.95%
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.
-100.00%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
91.14%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with TRAW's 99.97%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
75.06%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of TRAW's 96.86%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
-16.88%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-109.23%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while TRAW is at 99.72%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
62.10%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TRAW's 45.82%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
-51.96%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-71.08%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
-53.15%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while TRAW is at 63.63%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-63.40%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
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.
1.71%
Asset growth at 50-75% of TRAW's 2.83%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
-7.41%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-6.71%
We’re deleveraging while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
37.48%
R&D dropping or stable vs. TRAW's 107.55%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
21.30%
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.