SAP SE holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Cadence Design Systems still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (CDNS: Nasdaq 100, SAP.DE: HDAX).
Profitability drives the lead, while growth keeps the result from looking one-sided. The overall score gap is 10 points in favour of SAP SE.
Both operate in: Software - Application
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CDNS and SAP.DE share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Cadence Design Systems and SAP SE each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
SAP SE and Cadence Design Systems, Inc. look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward SAP SE.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CDNS and SAP.DE each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The clearest distance comes from a stronger profitability profile.
Earnings growth also leans toward CDNS, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
Profitability settles the comparison, while pricing and growth keep the broader setup from looking fully aligned.
Break down the CDNS vs SAP.DE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CDNS and SAP.DE each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.