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.
4.31%
Gross profit growth of 4.31% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal improvements could expand further.
8.25%
EBIT growth 50-75% of RVPH's 11.28%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
8.25%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of RVPH's 11.28%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
12.55%
Net income growth at 75-90% of RVPH's 15.69%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements to catch or surpass competitor performance.
15.52%
EPS growth at 75-90% of RVPH's 20.00%. Bill Ackman would push for improved profitability or share repurchases to catch up.
15.52%
Diluted EPS growth at 75-90% of RVPH's 20.00%. Bill Ackman would expect further improvements in net income or share count reduction.
3.21%
Share reduction more than 1.5x RVPH's 7.13%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
3.21%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x RVPH's 7.13%. 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.
18.46%
Positive OCF growth while RVPH is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
18.52%
Positive FCF growth while RVPH is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
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.
80.04%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while RVPH is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
77.11%
Positive OCF/share growth while RVPH is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-27.06%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while RVPH stands at 0.30%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
72.83%
Positive 10Y CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
70.62%
Positive 5Y CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-36.68%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
109.68%
Equity/share CAGR of 109.68% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-48.78%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while RVPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-45.28%
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.
-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.
-10.20%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-20.44%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-5.39%
We’re deleveraging while RVPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
4.88%
We increase R&D while RVPH cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-40.17%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.