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 TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-83.05%
Negative gross profit growth while TRAW is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
7.21%
Positive EBIT growth while TRAW is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
7.21%
Positive operating income growth while TRAW is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
7.01%
Positive net income growth while TRAW is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
8.82%
Positive EPS growth while TRAW is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
8.82%
Positive diluted EPS growth while TRAW is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.91%
Share count expansion well above TRAW's 0.19%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.91%
Diluted share count expanding well above TRAW's 0.19%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.55%
OCF growth above 1.5x TRAW's 0.14%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
1.40%
FCF growth above 1.5x TRAW's 0.14%. 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.
-100.00%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
91.07%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with TRAW's 99.99%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
81.18%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of TRAW's 98.75%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
13.88%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of TRAW's 53.78%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
98.43%
Similar net income/share CAGR to TRAW's 99.99%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
78.58%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of TRAW's 98.78%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
-7.39%
Negative 3Y CAGR while TRAW is 26.60%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
109.82%
Positive growth while TRAW is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
14.99%
Below 50% of TRAW's 107.31%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-59.15%
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.
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.
8.48%
Positive asset growth while TRAW is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
19.47%
Positive BV/share change while TRAW is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-6.20%
We’re deleveraging while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-18.94%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
28.45%
SG&A declining or stable vs. TRAW's 61.04%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.