vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Cadence Design Systems (CDNS) and Fair Isaac (FICO), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Cadence Design Systems is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.4B vs $512.0M, roughly 2.8× Fair Isaac). Fair Isaac runs the higher net margin — 27.0% vs 30.9%, a 4.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Fair Isaac posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (16.4% vs 6.2%). Cadence Design Systems produced more free cash flow last quarter ($512.5M vs $173.9M). Over the past eight quarters, Cadence Design Systems's revenue compounded faster (19.5% CAGR vs 8.6%).
Cadence Design Systems, Inc. is an American multinational technology and computational software company headquartered in San Jose, California. Initially specialized in electronic design automation (EDA) software for the semiconductor industry, currently the company makes software and hardware for designing products such as integrated circuits, systems on chips (SoCs), printed circuit boards, and pharmaceutical drugs, also licensing intellectual property for the electronics, aerospace, defense an...
FICO, originally Fair, Isaac and Company, is an American data analytics company based in Bozeman, Montana, focused on credit scoring services. It was founded by Bill Fair and Earl Isaac in 1956. Its FICO score, a measure of consumer credit risk, has become a fixture of consumer lending in the United States.
CDNS vs FICO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q1 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.4B | $512.0M |
| Net Profit | $388.1M | $158.4M |
| Gross Margin | — | 83.0% |
| Operating Margin | 32.2% | 45.7% |
| Net Margin | 27.0% | 30.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 6.2% | 16.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | 14.1% | 3.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.42 | $6.61 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | $512.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $515.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | $536.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $498.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | $440.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $453.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $447.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.0B | $433.8M |
| Q4 25 | $388.1M | $158.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $287.1M | $155.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $160.1M | $181.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $273.6M | $162.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $340.2M | $152.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $238.1M | $135.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $229.5M | $126.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $247.6M | $129.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | 83.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 82.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 83.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 82.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 80.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 80.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 80.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 80.0% |
| Q4 25 | 32.2% | 45.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 31.8% | 46.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.0% | 48.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 29.1% | 49.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 33.7% | 40.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 28.8% | 43.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 27.7% | 42.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 24.8% | 44.9% |
| Q4 25 | 27.0% | 30.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 21.4% | 30.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.5% | 33.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 22.0% | 32.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 25.1% | 34.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.6% | 29.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.6% | 28.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 24.5% | 29.9% |
| Q4 25 | $1.42 | $6.61 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.05 | $6.41 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.59 | $7.40 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.00 | $6.59 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.23 | $6.14 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.87 | $5.44 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.84 | $5.05 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.91 | $5.16 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $3.2B | $162.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $3.2B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $5.5B | $-1.8B |
| Total Assets | $10.2B | $1.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | $162.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.8B | $134.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.8B | $189.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.8B | $146.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.8B | $184.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.8B | $150.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $156.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.0B | $135.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $3.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.0B |
| Q4 25 | $5.5B | $-1.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.2B | $-1.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.0B | $-1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.8B | $-1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.7B | $-1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.6B | $-962.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.3B | $-829.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.6B | $-735.7M |
| Q4 25 | $10.2B | $1.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $9.6B | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.5B | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.0B | $1.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.0B | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.2B | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.2B | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.7B | $1.7B |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $553.5M | $174.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $512.5M | $173.9M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 35.6% | 34.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.8% | 0.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.43× | 1.10× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $1.6B | $750.6M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $553.5M | $174.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $310.7M | $223.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $377.6M | $286.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $487.0M | $74.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $441.4M | $194.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $410.0M | $226.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $156.0M | $213.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $253.2M | $71.0M |
| Q4 25 | $512.5M | $173.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $277.0M | $219.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $333.5M | $284.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $464.0M | $72.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $404.2M | $193.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $383.5M | $224.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $126.8M | $211.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $203.6M | $67.0M |
| Q4 25 | 35.6% | 34.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.7% | 42.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 26.1% | 53.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 37.3% | 14.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 29.8% | 43.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 31.5% | 49.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.0% | 47.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 20.2% | 15.4% |
| Q4 25 | 2.8% | 0.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.5% | 0.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.5% | 0.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.9% | 0.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.7% | 0.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.2% | 0.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.8% | 0.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.9% | 0.9% |
| Q4 25 | 1.43× | 1.10× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.08× | 1.44× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.36× | 1.57× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.78× | 0.46× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.30× | 1.27× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.72× | 1.67× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.68× | 1.69× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.02× | 0.55× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
CDNS
| Productandmaintenance | $1.3B | 93% |
| Technology Service | $107.6M | 7% |
FICO
| Business To Business Scores | $248.6M | 49% |
| Saa S Products | $115.7M | 23% |
| Platform Software | $73.9M | 14% |
| Business To Consumer Scores | $55.9M | 11% |
| Technology Service | $19.2M | 4% |
