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.
100.00%
EBIT growth above 1.5x TRAW's 1.42%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
-121.69%
Negative operating income growth while TRAW is at 1.42%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-139.60%
Negative net income growth while TRAW stands at 171.82%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-131.82%
Negative EPS growth while TRAW is at 172.03%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-131.82%
Negative diluted EPS growth while TRAW is at 172.03%. 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.
-31.70%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-31.70%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
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.
95.37%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with TRAW's 99.98%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
75.95%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TRAW's 64.47%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
7.00%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while TRAW is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
81.58%
Net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of TRAW's 100.07%. Bill Ackman would press for strategic moves to boost long-term earnings.
47.75%
Below 50% of TRAW's 278.24%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-122.09%
Negative 3Y CAGR while TRAW is 530.58%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-94.45%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
58.16%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while TRAW is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-73.50%
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.
-10.73%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-21.56%
We have a declining book value while TRAW shows 118.97%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-8.90%
We’re deleveraging while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
60.05%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. TRAW's 34.88%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
231.77%
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.