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.
-22.03%
Negative EBIT growth while RVPH is at 5.85%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-22.03%
Negative operating income growth while RVPH is at 7.11%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-22.30%
Negative net income growth while RVPH stands at 5.90%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-22.29%
Negative EPS growth while RVPH is at 7.69%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-22.29%
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.
-72.30%
Negative OCF growth while RVPH is at 38.83%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-72.45%
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.
-22389.18%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while RVPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
42.89%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x RVPH's 21.52%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
64.68%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x RVPH's 53.59%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
-7255.64%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-121.67%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while RVPH is 60.51%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
22.78%
Below 50% of RVPH's 58.01%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
5223.15%
Equity/share CAGR of 5223.15% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
855.06%
Equity/share CAGR of 855.06% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
-50.27%
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.
53.46%
Asset growth at 75-90% of RVPH's 64.40%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
59.08%
50-75% of RVPH's 89.95%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
15.66%
We increase R&D while RVPH cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
40.35%
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.