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.
43.43%
EBIT growth above 1.5x TRAW's 7.77%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
-14.45%
Negative operating income growth while TRAW is at 7.56%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
43.33%
Net income growth above 1.5x TRAW's 7.70%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
43.35%
EPS growth above 1.5x TRAW's 7.72%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
43.35%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x TRAW's 7.72%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
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.
-15.17%
Negative OCF growth while TRAW is at 30.95%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-15.15%
Negative FCF growth while TRAW is at 30.98%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
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.
-167027.54%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-35848.35%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-39776.52%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-711192.96%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while TRAW is at 18.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-12332.31%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while TRAW is 18.66%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-13057.95%
Negative 3Y CAGR while TRAW is 18.66%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
90012.37%
Equity/share CAGR of 90012.37% while TRAW is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
5373.91%
Equity/share CAGR of 5373.91% while TRAW is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
7310.97%
Equity/share CAGR of 7310.97% 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.
164.96%
Positive asset growth while TRAW is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
955.36%
Positive BV/share change while TRAW is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-33.08%
We’re deleveraging while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
0.44%
We increase R&D while TRAW cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
34.62%
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.