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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
43.43%
EBIT growth 50-75% of CRVO's 84.89%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
-14.45%
Negative operating income growth while CRVO is at 77.16%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
43.33%
Net income growth at 50-75% of CRVO's 75.46%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
43.35%
EPS growth of 43.35% while CRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
43.35%
Diluted EPS growth of 43.35% while CRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
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.
-15.17%
Negative OCF growth while CRVO is at 51.36%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-15.15%
Negative FCF growth while CRVO is at 52.50%. 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.
-167027.54%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while CRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-35848.35%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while CRVO is at 92.89%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-39776.52%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while CRVO stands at 97.98%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-711192.96%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while CRVO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-12332.31%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while CRVO is 98.07%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-13057.95%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CRVO is 83.02%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
90012.37%
Equity/share CAGR of 90012.37% while CRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
5373.91%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while CRVO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
7310.97%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x CRVO's 165.55%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
164.96%
Positive asset growth while CRVO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
955.36%
BV/share growth of 955.36% while CRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-33.08%
We’re deleveraging while CRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
0.44%
We increase R&D while CRVO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
34.62%
We expand SG&A while CRVO cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.