vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Cadence Design Systems (CDNS) and Tronox Holdings plc (TROX). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Cadence Design Systems is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.3B vs $730.0M, roughly 1.7× Tronox Holdings plc). Cadence Design Systems runs the higher net margin — 22.8% vs -24.1%, a 46.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Tronox Holdings plc posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (8.0% vs -16.1%). Cadence Design Systems produced more free cash flow last quarter ($464.0M vs $53.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Cadence Design Systems's revenue compounded faster (9.6% CAGR vs -2.9%).
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...
Tronox Limited is an American worldwide chemical company involved in the titanium products industry with approximately 6,500 employees. Following its acquisition of the mineral sands business formerly belonging to South Africa's Exxaro Resources, Tronox is the largest fully integrated seller and marketer of titanium dioxide (TiO2) pigment, which provides brightness to applications such as coatings, plastics and paper. Tronox mines titanium-bearing mineral sands and operates upgrading faciliti...
CDNS vs TROX — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.3B | $730.0M |
| Net Profit | $335.7M | $-176.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | 5.3% |
| Operating Margin | 29.3% | -15.6% |
| Net Margin | 22.8% | -24.1% |
| Revenue YoY | -16.1% | 8.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 22.7% | -486.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.00 | $-1.11 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history. Quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q1 26 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | $730.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $699.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | $731.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $738.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | $676.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $804.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $820.0M |
| Q1 26 | $335.7M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $388.1M | $-176.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $287.1M | $-99.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $160.1M | $-84.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $273.6M | $-111.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $340.2M | $-30.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $238.1M | $-25.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $229.5M | $16.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 5.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 7.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 10.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 13.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 17.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 15.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 18.3% |
| Q1 26 | 29.3% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 32.2% | -15.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 31.8% | -6.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.0% | -4.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 29.1% | -8.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 33.7% | 7.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 28.8% | 6.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 27.7% | 9.3% |
| Q1 26 | 22.8% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 27.0% | -24.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 21.4% | -14.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.5% | -11.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 22.0% | -15.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 25.1% | -4.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.6% | -3.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.6% | 2.0% |
| Q1 26 | $1.00 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.42 | $-1.11 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.05 | $-0.63 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.59 | $-0.53 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.00 | $-0.70 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.23 | $-0.19 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.87 | $-0.16 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.84 | $0.10 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $2.8B | $199.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.5B | $3.1B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $6.6B | $1.4B |
| Total Assets | $12.1B | $6.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.38× | 2.21× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $2.8B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | $199.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.8B | $185.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.8B | $132.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.8B | $138.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.8B | $151.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.8B | $167.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $201.0M |
| Q1 26 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $3.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.8B |
| Q1 26 | $6.6B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $5.5B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.2B | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.0B | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.8B | $1.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.7B | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.6B | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.3B | $1.9B |
| Q1 26 | $12.1B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $10.2B | $6.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $9.6B | $6.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.5B | $6.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.0B | $6.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.0B | $6.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.2B | $6.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.2B | $6.1B |
| Q1 26 | 0.38× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 2.21× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.01× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.67× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.64× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.57× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.45× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.47× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Cash flow is harder to manipulate than net income.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $355.8M | $121.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $464.0M | $53.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 36.4% | 7.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 5.1% | 9.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.06× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $1.6B | $-281.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $355.8M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $553.5M | $121.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $310.7M | $-57.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $377.6M | $28.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $487.0M | $-32.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $441.4M | $82.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $410.0M | $87.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $156.0M | $160.0M |
| Q1 26 | $464.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $512.5M | $53.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $277.0M | $-137.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $333.5M | $-55.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $464.0M | $-142.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $404.2M | $-35.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $383.5M | $-14.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $126.8M | $84.0M |
| Q1 26 | 36.4% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 35.6% | 7.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.7% | -19.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 26.1% | -7.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 37.3% | -19.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 29.8% | -5.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 31.5% | -1.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.0% | 10.2% |
| Q1 26 | 5.1% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.8% | 9.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.5% | 11.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.5% | 11.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.9% | 14.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.7% | 17.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.2% | 12.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.8% | 9.3% |
| Q1 26 | 1.06× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.43× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.08× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.36× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.78× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.30× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.72× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.68× | 10.00× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
CDNS
| Product and Maintenance | $1.1B | 87% |
| Services | $131.0M | 10% |
| Other | $33.0M | 3% |
TROX
| Ti O2 | $577.0M | 79% |
| Zircon | $78.0M | 11% |
| Idle Facility And Lower Of Cost Or Net Realizable Value Charges | $42.0M | 6% |
| Other | $20.0M | 3% |
| MGT | $13.0M | 2% |
