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.
-108.36%
Negative EBIT growth while TRAW is at 33.33%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-9873.13%
Negative operating income growth while TRAW is at 23.59%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-16129.65%
Negative net income growth while TRAW stands at 31.33%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-12933.18%
Negative EPS growth while TRAW is at 31.33%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-12933.18%
Negative diluted EPS growth while TRAW is at 31.33%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
24.22%
Share change of 24.22% while TRAW is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
24.22%
Diluted share change of 24.22% while TRAW 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.
-18.12%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
0.96%
Positive FCF growth while TRAW 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.
-63.71%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-63.71%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while TRAW is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-2899.60%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-30244.22%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while TRAW is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-30244.22%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while TRAW is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-27789.91%
Negative 3Y CAGR while TRAW is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-195.85%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-195.85%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while TRAW is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
20.77%
Equity/share CAGR of 20.77% while TRAW 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.
-5.33%
Negative asset growth while TRAW invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
14.08%
BV/share growth of 14.08% while TRAW is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
11.04%
Debt growth of 11.04% while TRAW is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
35.15%
We increase R&D while TRAW cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3110.63%
We expand SG&A while TRAW cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.