Cadence Design Systems vs PTC
CDNS and PTC side by side, both in computer programming, data processing, and other computer related services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CDNS and PTC compare
Cadence Design Systems is the larger company, worth 4.3 times as much as PTC ($90.3B against $21.2B).
On earnings, PTC is cheaper: it trades at 19.0× trailing earnings, against 65.2× for Cadence Design Systems.
PTC grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (19.5% versus 14.7% for Cadence Design Systems).
PTC keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 41.4% compared with 23.6% at Cadence Design Systems.
PTC scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 15 for Cadence Design Systems), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | CDNS | PTC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $90.3B | $21.2B |
| Share price | $327.89 | $195.54 |
| Change, 1 year | −4.0% | −1.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 84.2% | 55.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.37 | 1.00 |
| Employees | 14K | 7,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 | 6 |
| Health score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 65.2× | 19.0× (better) |
| P/S | 15.5× | 7.2× (better) |
| P/B | 13.2× | 6.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 42.5× | 17.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 53.8× | 22.7× (better) |
| PEG | 6.84 | 0.60 (better) |
| FCF yield | 1.9% | 4.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $233.77 | $321.76 |
| Margin of safety | −40.3% | 39.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 14.7% | 19.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.6% (better) | 13.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 36.2% | 139% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 35.9% | 142% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 14.0% | 40.3% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 84.5% |
| Operating margin | 30.3% | 37.8% (better) |
| Net margin | 23.6% | 41.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 28.8% | 31.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | 23.2% | 35.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 35.2% (better) | 27.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.01 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −0.27 |
| Interest coverage | 14.1× | 17.1× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.74 (better) | 1.03 |
| Altman Z-score | 12.38 (better) | 5.84 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 0.71% | 6.6% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.71% | 6.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.3% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 0.29% | 0.35% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$103M | −$11.5M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.1% | 5.1% |
Go deeper
- CDNS stock overview
- CDNS income statement
- CDNS valuation and score
- PTC stock overview
- PTC income statement
- PTC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.