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.
-95.21%
Negative revenue growth while RVPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-116.81%
Negative gross profit growth while RVPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-52.01%
Negative EBIT growth while RVPH is at 25.91%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-52.01%
Negative operating income growth while RVPH is at 25.91%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-52.47%
Negative net income growth while RVPH stands at 27.49%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-43.48%
Negative EPS growth while RVPH is at 27.50%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-43.48%
Negative diluted EPS growth while RVPH is at 27.50%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
7.17%
Share change of 7.17% while RVPH is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
7.17%
Diluted share change of 7.17% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
582.93%
OCF growth above 1.5x RVPH's 36.15%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
577.68%
FCF growth above 1.5x RVPH's 36.15%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
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.
9508.05%
OCF/share CAGR of 9508.05% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
131.96%
OCF/share CAGR of 131.96% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
210.81%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
88.12%
Positive 10Y CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
91.00%
Positive 5Y CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
67.11%
Positive short-term CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1963.85%
Equity/share CAGR of 1963.85% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-27.97%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while RVPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
5.99%
Equity/share CAGR of 5.99% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
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.
63.35%
Positive asset growth while RVPH is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
5.97%
Positive BV/share change while RVPH is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
1244.16%
Debt growth of 1244.16% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
6.71%
We increase R&D while RVPH cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
86.34%
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.