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.
153.33%
Revenue growth of 153.33% while RVPH is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a small edge can widen further.
73.30%
Gross profit growth of 73.30% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal improvements could expand further.
-15.23%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-15.23%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-9.33%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-5.41%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-8.33%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
2.98%
Share count expansion well above RVPH's 1.28%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
2.03%
Diluted share count expanding well above RVPH's 1.28%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-36.10%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-34.66%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
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.
95.84%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while RVPH is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
71.82%
Positive OCF/share growth while RVPH is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
66.77%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x RVPH's 14.49%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
96.67%
Positive 10Y CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
77.76%
Positive 5Y CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
53.48%
Positive short-term CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
61.16%
Equity/share CAGR of 61.16% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-44.17%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while RVPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
152.11%
Positive short-term equity growth while RVPH is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-100.00%
Negative near-term dividend growth while RVPH invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-2.25%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-9.40%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.77%
We’re deleveraging while RVPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
8.30%
R&D dropping or stable vs. RVPH's 173.09%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
28.80%
SG&A growth well above RVPH's 17.47%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.