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.
-12.41%
Negative revenue growth while GNPX stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-12.41%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-27.47%
Negative EBIT growth while GNPX is at 13.75%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-27.47%
Negative operating income growth while GNPX is at 13.75%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-27.92%
Negative net income growth while GNPX stands at 13.75%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-20.00%
Negative EPS growth while GNPX is at 14.24%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-20.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GNPX is at 14.24%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
6.47%
Share count expansion well above GNPX's 0.51%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
6.47%
Diluted share count expanding well above GNPX's 0.51%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-21.90%
Negative OCF growth while GNPX is at 11.19%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-21.77%
Negative FCF growth while GNPX is at 8.26%. 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.
-2645.13%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while GNPX stands at 21.77%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
92.60%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GNPX's 21.77%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
85.56%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GNPX's 44.90%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-3055.33%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while GNPX is at 78.73%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
92.82%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GNPX's 78.73%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
82.14%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x GNPX's 51.63%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
1796.75%
Equity/share CAGR of 1796.75% while GNPX is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-58.41%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while GNPX is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
18.52%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of GNPX's 32.50%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
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.
0.03%
Positive asset growth while GNPX is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-6.32%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-20.42%
We’re deleveraging while GNPX stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
29.66%
We increase R&D while GNPX cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
16.61%
We expand SG&A while GNPX cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.