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.
-100.00%
Negative revenue growth while RVPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
100.00%
Gross profit growth of 100.00% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal improvements could expand further.
-2.59%
Negative EBIT growth while RVPH is at 13.36%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-2.59%
Negative operating income growth while RVPH is at 13.36%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-10.34%
Negative net income growth while RVPH stands at 18.67%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-10.26%
Negative EPS growth while RVPH is at 28.57%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-10.26%
Negative diluted EPS growth while RVPH is at 28.57%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.08%
Share reduction more than 1.5x RVPH's 11.87%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.08%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x RVPH's 11.87%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-93.84%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-94.42%
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.
81.91%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while RVPH is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
68.32%
Positive OCF/share growth while RVPH is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
41.88%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
55.55%
Positive 10Y CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
79.95%
Positive 5Y CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
56.07%
Positive short-term CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
188.20%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with RVPH's 180.76%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
-69.82%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while RVPH is at 180.76%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
327.49%
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.
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.
-10.65%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-14.02%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-4.69%
We’re deleveraging while RVPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
7.04%
We increase R&D while RVPH cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-5.63%
We cut SG&A while RVPH invests at 1.63%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.