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.
-90.13%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-148.93%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-24.41%
Negative EBIT growth while TRAW is at 5.69%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-24.41%
Negative operating income growth while TRAW is at 5.69%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-24.71%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-23.33%
Negative EPS growth while TRAW is at 18.18%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-23.33%
Negative diluted EPS growth while TRAW is at 18.18%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
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.
9.59%
OCF growth above 1.5x TRAW's 0.05%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
10.68%
FCF growth above 1.5x TRAW's 0.05%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
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.
-1874.89%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while TRAW stands at 99.99%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
89.77%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of TRAW's 99.88%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
79.09%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of TRAW's 98.74%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
-5123.81%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while TRAW is at 99.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
89.73%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of TRAW's 99.92%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
77.51%
3Y net income/share CAGR 75-90% of TRAW's 98.94%. Bill Ackman might push for an operational plan to match or beat the competitor’s short-term growth.
1605.51%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TRAW's 100.01%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
-64.94%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
48.08%
Positive short-term equity growth while TRAW 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.
-4.84%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-8.40%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-26.37%
We’re deleveraging while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
15.04%
We increase R&D while TRAW cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
33.15%
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.