Cadence Design Systems vs Take Two Interactive Software
CDNS and TTWO 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 TTWO compare
Cadence Design Systems is the larger company, worth 2.5 times as much as Take Two Interactive Software ($90.3B against $35.6B).
Take Two Interactive Software grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (15.3% versus 14.7% for Cadence Design Systems).
Cadence Design Systems keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 23.6% compared with −4.8% at Take Two Interactive Software.
Cadence Design Systems scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 6 for Take Two Interactive Software), 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 | TTWO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $90.3B | $35.6B |
| Share price | $327.89 | $190.17 |
| Change, 1 year | −4.0% | −24.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 84.2% | 1.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.37 | 0.81 |
| Employees | 14K | 13K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 65.2× | – |
| P/S | 15.5× | 5.3× (better) |
| P/B | 13.2× | 9.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 42.5× (better) | 1036× |
| P/FCF | 53.8× (better) | 105× |
| PEG | 6.84 | – |
| FCF yield | 1.9% (better) | 0.95% |
| Fair value | $233.77 | $112.12 |
| Margin of safety | −40.3% (better) | −69.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 14.7% | 15.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.6% (better) | 14.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 36.2% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 35.9% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 14.0% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 56.0% |
| Operating margin | 30.3% (better) | −2.4% |
| Net margin | 23.6% (better) | −4.8% |
| FCF margin | 28.8% (better) | 5.0% |
| Return on equity | 23.2% (better) | −9.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 35.2% (better) | −2.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.70 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 19.80 |
| Interest coverage | 14.1× (better) | −1.1× |
| Current ratio | 1.74 (better) | 1.06 |
| Altman Z-score | 12.38 (better) | 3.47 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 0.71% (better) | −0.17% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.71% (better) | −0.17% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.3% | 93.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.29% | 2.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$103M (better) | −$163M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.1% | 5.1% |
Go deeper
- CDNS stock overview
- CDNS income statement
- CDNS valuation and score
- TTWO stock overview
- TTWO income statement
- TTWO valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.