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.
-89.95%
Negative EBIT growth while RVPH is at 5.85%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-95.43%
Negative operating income growth while RVPH is at 7.11%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-134.36%
Negative net income growth while RVPH stands at 5.90%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-134.21%
Negative EPS growth while RVPH is at 7.69%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-134.21%
Negative diluted EPS growth while RVPH is at 7.69%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
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.
-141.82%
Negative OCF growth while RVPH is at 38.83%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-141.82%
Negative FCF growth while RVPH is at 38.83%. 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.
-31.42%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while RVPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-31.42%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while RVPH is at 21.52%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-183.28%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while RVPH stands at 53.59%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
1.36%
Positive 10Y CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
1.36%
Below 50% of RVPH's 60.51%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-52.35%
Negative 3Y CAGR while RVPH is 58.01%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-201.38%
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.
-99.57%
Negative asset growth while RVPH invests at 64.40%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-12.67%
We have a declining book value while RVPH shows 89.95%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-28.84%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
60.35%
We expand SG&A while RVPH cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.