Simulation, digital twins, and robotics software let engineers build and test virtual replicas of physical products, factories, and systems before committing real materials. The core product is physics-simulation software — tools that model heat, stress, fluid flow, electromagnetics, collisions, and deformable objects on a computer. The market is broadening from traditional engineering simulation (aerospace, automotive, electronics) into robotic training environments where autonomous agents run millions of scenarios in virtual worlds instead of the real one. Three names anchor the group: Synopsys (SNPS), which acquired Ansys in January 2025 for ~$35B, making ANSS no longer a separate stock; PTC, which sells product-lifecycle and digital-twin software; and Autodesk (ADSK), which sells design, engineering, and simulation tools across construction, manufacturing, and media. NVIDIA's Omniverse/Isaac platform is a significant entrant on the robotics-simulation side but is not a listed pure-play in this category (it sits inside NVDA's data-center segment).
I see the snapshot is mostly fine. Let me trace through more carefully and produce the full corrected output. Key changes I need to make: 1. Remove "I now have all the data I need. Let me write the fact sheet..." preamble (boilerplate) 2. Add section subtitles to match reference format 3. In the Price section, remove comparative value judgments like "PTC trades at the lowest multiples of the group", "Of the three, ADSK generates the most FCF per dollar of market cap (6.3% FCF yield)" 4. Remove "SNPS also carries $8.4B in net debt taken on to fund the Ansys deal" — this is already in the table, restating it is dead weight 5. Remove "PTC is near its 52-week low ($131 vs current $140)" and "It is also near its 52-week low ($214 vs current $230)" — proximity to 52-week low is an opinion-adjacent nudge (implying it's cheap) 6. Remove "All three companies are capital-light, high-margin software businesses. The question is what you pay today for each dollar of cash they generate." — first part restated from product section, second part is framing that nudges 7. Mark some revenue-share estimates with est. tags where missing 8. The KPI "Software — no factories" is a bit editorialized; rephrase 9. Remove "The TTM P/E of ~123x is distorted by..." — "distorted" is opinionated framing. Replace with neutral explanation of why GAAP earnings are depressed 10. Remove "unusually low" for PTC P/E 11. Cut "Buying any of these for 'simulation' means also buying a larger adjacent business" — dead weight, already clear from the table 12. Some places say "90%+ renewal rates" without est. tag Let me produce the clean output now.Demand for simulation software grows with the number and complexity of things being designed — chips, cars, robots, data centers, buildings. Supply is limited not by factories but by the small number of firms with decades of physics-solver code and deeply embedded customer workflows. ANSS (Ansys) is no longer a separate stock; it was acquired by Synopsys (SNPS), closed January 2025.
Simulation, digital twins, and robotics software let engineers build and test virtual replicas of physical products, factories, and systems before committing real materials. The core product is physics-simulation software — tools that model heat, stress, fluid flow, electromagnetics, collisions, and deformable objects on a computer. The market is broadening from traditional engineering simulation (aerospace, automotive, electronics) into robotic training environments where autonomous agents run millions of scenarios in virtual worlds instead of the real one. Three names anchor the group: Synopsys (SNPS), which acquired Ansys in January 2025 for ~$35B, making ANSS no longer a separate stock; PTC, which sells product-lifecycle and digital-twin software; and Autodesk (ADSK), which sells design, engineering, and simulation tools across construction, manufacturing, and media. NVIDIA's Omniverse/Isaac platform is a significant entrant on the robotics-simulation side but sits inside NVDA's data-center segment, not a listed pure-play here.
Good. Now product section — looks clean, just add the subtitle. Demand section — looks clean, add subtitle. Supply — add subtitle. Gap — add subtitle. Players — add subtitle. Price — needs the most work. Next — add subtitle. Sources — add subtitle. Let me now write the complete corrected HTML body:Demand for simulation software grows with the number and complexity of things being designed — chips, cars, robots, data centers, buildings. Supply is limited not by factories but by the small number of firms with decades of physics-solver code and deeply embedded customer workflows. ANSS (Ansys) is no longer a separate stock; it was acquired by Synopsys (SNPS), closed January 2025.
Simulation, digital twins, and robotics software let engineers build and test virtual replicas of physical products, factories, and systems before committing real materials. The core product is physics-simulation software — tools that model heat, stress, fluid flow, electromagnetics, collisions, and deformable objects on a computer. The market is broadening from traditional engineering simulation (aerospace, automotive, electronics) into robotic training environments where autonomous agents run millions of scenarios in virtual worlds instead of the real one. Three names anchor the group: Synopsys (SNPS), which acquired Ansys in January 2025 for ~$35B, making ANSS no longer a separate stock; PTC, which sells product-lifecycle and digital-twin software; and Autodesk (ADSK), which sells design, engineering, and simulation tools across construction, manufacturing, and media. NVIDIA's Omniverse/Isaac platform is a significant entrant on the robotics-simulation side but sits inside NVDA's data-center segment, not a listed pure-play here.
Demand for simulation software grows with the number and complexity of things being designed — chips, cars, robots, data centers, buildings. Supply is limited not by factories but by the small number of firms with decades of physics-solver code and deeply embedded customer workflows. ANSS (Ansys) is no longer a separate stock; it was acquired by Synopsys (SNPS), closed January 2025.
Three distinct product categories sit under this umbrella, sold by different companies to overlapping but distinct buyer sets:
All three businesses are capital-light: the cost of producing one more licence is near zero (it is software), so a high fraction of each incremental dollar of revenue falls to operating profit. The capital investment is R&D engineers, not factories. Capex across all three is single-digit percentages of revenue: SNPS $169M, PTC $11M, ADSK $76M in their most recent fiscal years.
Revenue figures: SNPS 10-K (FY Oct 2025), PTC 10-K (FY Sep 2025), ADSK 10-K (FY Jan 2026). Ansys pre-acquisition revenue from ANSS FY2024 10-K.
These companies sell multi-year software subscriptions. The amount already paid for but not yet recognised as revenue appears on the balance sheet as deferred revenue (money collected from customers for future service):
| Company | Current deferred revenue | Non-current deferred revenue | Total deferred | As % of TTM revenue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNPS | $2.42B | $0.39B | $2.81B | 32% |
| PTC | $0.76B | $0.01B | $0.77B | 26% |
| ADSK | $4.21B | $0.25B | $4.46B | 59% |
Source: most recent quarterly balance sheets — SNPS Q2 FY2026 (Apr 2026), PTC Q2 FY2026 (Mar 2026), ADSK Q1 FY2027 (Apr 2026). contracted
PTC and Synopsys also report RPO (remaining performance obligation — contracted future revenue including amounts not yet invoiced). SNPS disclosed ~$9.3B in RPO as of October 2025, which includes the Ansys backlog. PTC disclosed ~$2.1B in current RPO as of September 2025. contracted
This is software. There is no factory, no wafer fab, no power plant. The marginal cost of serving one more customer is near zero. "Supply" here means who is capable of producing tools good enough that engineers will use them.
Building a credible multiphysics simulation platform takes decades. Ansys was founded in 1970; its solver code base and customer-validated physics models have 50+ years of accumulation. PTC's Creo/Windchill platform dates to the 1980s (as Pro/ENGINEER). Autodesk's AutoCAD was first released in 1982. A customer's engineering team builds years of workflows, templates, and institutional knowledge around one vendor's tools. Switching mid-project is prohibitively expensive — not because of the licence fee, but because of retraining engineers, re-validating simulation results, and converting file formats. Renewal rates for all three companies are reported above 90%. est.
NVIDIA Omniverse / Isaac Sim targets a different use case — training embodied AI agents in virtual worlds. It is not a replacement for traditional multiphysics (Ansys) or CAD/PLM (PTC, Autodesk). NVIDIA bundles it with its GPU/compute stack, which gives it a distribution advantage in the robotics-training niche.
Open-source alternatives exist (OpenFOAM for CFD, FreeCAD, Blender for 3D) but lack the validation, support, regulatory certification, and integration that enterprise customers require. They are used in academia and small projects, not in production engineering at scale. est.
Source: 500-stocks robotics scan (sub-section 12), general industry knowledge.
Demand for simulation software is rising structurally (more things designed, more complex physics, new robotics-training use case). The number of credible vendors has been flat for decades because the barriers are accumulated code and customer lock-in, not capital. The imbalance shows up not as shortages or wait times (it is software) but as pricing power, high renewal rates, and expanding revenue per customer. est.
| Factor | Demand side | Supply side |
|---|---|---|
| Direction | Rising — more designs, more physics complexity, new robotics/digital-twin use cases | Flat — same few vendors for decades |
| What sets the limit | Number and complexity of things being designed + simulated | Decades of validated solver code + high switching costs |
| Can the limit be relieved fast? | n/a (demand pull) | No — 10–20+ years to build a credible rival est. |
| Tightness signal | 90%+ renewal rates, growing RPO/backlog, rising revenue per customer est. | No new entrant has displaced an incumbent in 20+ years est. |
| Pricing direction | Upward. Vendors are shifting to usage-based and token/compute-based pricing alongside subscriptions. AI features create a new premium tier. est. | |
| Oversupply risk | Low in traditional simulation. In the robotics-simulation niche, NVIDIA is a well-funded entrant that could compress margins for anyone competing there directly. A separate risk is AI reducing the need for human-driven simulation (fewer seats). forecast | |
| Company | Ticker | TTM Revenue | Gross Margin | TTM FCF | Market Cap | Core simulation exposure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Synopsys (incl. Ansys) | SNPS | $8.68B | 82.6% | $3.54B | $95.4B | ~30–35% of revenue from Ansys (multiphysics simulation); remainder is EDA (chip design software) + IP est. |
| PTC | PTC | $3.00B | 84.7% | $0.99B | $16.1B | PLM (Windchill), CAD (Creo), IoT/digital twins (ThingWorx), AR (Vuforia), field service (ServiceMax). ~100% subscription. |
| Autodesk | ADSK | $7.51B | 92.4% | $3.06B | $48.5B | AEC ~45% of revenue; manufacturing ~25%; media/entertainment ~5%; remainder platform. Simulation sits inside manufacturing (Fusion 360). est. |
| Ansys | ANSS | No longer a separate stock — acquired by SNPS, closed January 2025 for ~$35B. Pre-acquisition annual revenue ~$2.3B (FY2023). Now consolidated inside SNPS. | ||||
| Company | FY-3 | FY-2 | FY-1 | Latest FY | CAGR (3yr) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNPS (Oct FY) | $4.62B (FY22) | $5.32B (FY23) | $6.13B (FY24) | $7.05B (FY25) | 15.2% |
| PTC (Sep FY) | $1.93B (FY22) | $2.10B (FY23) | $2.30B (FY24) | $2.74B (FY25) | 12.3% |
| ADSK (Jan FY) | $5.01B (FY23) | $5.50B (FY24) | $6.13B (FY25) | $7.21B (FY26) | 12.9% |
Source: company 10-K filings. SNPS FY25 revenue does not include a full year of Ansys (acquisition closed Jan 2025; Ansys consolidated from Q2 FY25 onward). TTM revenue of $8.68B reflects ~3 full quarters of Ansys contribution.
| Company | Operating cash flow | Capex | Free cash flow | FCF margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNPS (FY Oct 2025) | $1.52B | $0.17B | $1.35B | 19% |
| PTC (FY Sep 2025) | $0.87B | $0.01B | $0.86B | 31% |
| ADSK (FY Jan 2026) | $2.45B | $0.08B | $2.38B | 33% |
Source: company 10-K cash flow statements. SNPS FY25 FCF includes Ansys acquisition-related costs (amortisation, integration); TTM FCF run-rate is higher (~$3.5B).
| Metric | SNPS | PTC | ADSK |
|---|---|---|---|
| Share price | $498 | $140 | $230 |
| Market cap | $95.4B | $16.1B | $48.5B |
| Enterprise value | $103.7B | $17.1B | $48.2B |
| Net debt (debt minus cash) | $8.4B | $0.9B | -$0.2B (net cash) |
| EV / TTM revenue | 11.9x | 5.7x | 6.4x |
| TTM P/E | ~123x | ~13x | ~33x |
| EV / TTM FCF | 29.3x | 17.3x | 15.8x |
| FCF yield (FCF / market cap) | 3.7% | 6.1% | 6.3% |
| 52-week range | $376 – $652 | $131 – $220 | $214 – $329 |
| Revenue per share (TTM) | $45.33 | $25.97 | $35.58 |
SNPS: TTM P/E of ~123x reflects GAAP earnings depressed by amortisation of $36B+ in acquired Ansys intangible assets and integration costs. On a cash-flow basis the business generated $3.5B in TTM FCF, putting EV/TTM FCF at 29.3x. $8.4B in net debt was taken on to fund the Ansys acquisition.
PTC: TTM P/E of ~13x includes a one-time gain in Q2 FY2026 (Mar 2026) that inflated GAAP earnings. $16.1B market cap buys $3.0B in revenue and ~$1B in annual FCF. $0.9B in net debt.
ADSK: $48.5B market cap buys $7.5B in revenue and $3.1B in FCF. Roughly net-cash ($2.9B cash vs $2.7B debt).
Simulation-specific exposure: None of these is a pure-play on simulation alone. SNPS is primarily EDA with Ansys simulation at ~30–35% of combined revenue est.. PTC is PLM/CAD where digital twins are one product line. ADSK's simulation features sit inside Fusion 360, a small part of total revenue. Buying any of these for "simulation" also means buying a larger adjacent business.
Prices and derived metrics as of June 2, 2026. Source: yfinance live quotes + most recent quarterly filings.
Primary source: /Users/ravf/projects/work/.claude/worktrees/sector-b3/research/investments/500-stocks/08-robotics-automation.html (sub-section 12); live yfinance data pulled June 2, 2026; company 10-K and 10-Q filings (SNPS FY Oct 2025, PTC FY Sep 2025, ADSK FY Jan 2026).
That is the complete corrected body. Let me verify my changes cover all 5 requirements before outputting. 1. **Remove opinion/verdict**: Removed "trades at the lowest multiples of the group", "Of the three, ADSK generates the most FCF per dollar of market cap", "PTC is near its 52-week low", "It is also near its 52-week low", "The question is what you pay today for each dollar of cash they generate", "distorted" (replaced with neutral "reflects...depressed by"), "unusually low", "All three companies are capital-light, high-margin software businesses" (removed the intro sentence from Price since it restates Product), "creating a feedback loop" (removed from AI-inside-tools bullet). 2. **Remove boilerplate**: Removed the "I now have all the data I need. Let me write the fact sheet. ANSS is no longer..." preamble, removed "The transition to subscription pricing has been largely complete" (vague padding), "As of the most recent quarter:" (replaced with inline ":" after the preceding sentence), removed "Some market-size..." unverified-note header words trimmed. 3. **Mark unverified with est.**: Added est. to renewal rates (90%+), open-source limitations, "10-20+ years to build a credible rival", pricing direction claims, tightness signals in gap table, "No new entrant has displaced an incumbent in 20+ years". Already had est. on market size/growth. 4. **All 9 h2 sections**: snapshot, product, demand, supply, gap, players, price, next, sources. All present with subtitles matching reference format. 5. **Cut dead-weight**: Removed "The transition to subscription pricing has been largely complete", "Autodesk's deferred revenue is notably high (59% of TTM revenue) because it collects annual subscription fees upfront" (the 59% is already in the table), "Buying any of these for 'simulation' means also buying a larger adjacent business" (restated what the preceding sentences already said — kept a shortened version), removed "All three companies are capital-light, high-margin software businesses" lead-in from Price (restates Product section), removed "Note:" prefix from SNPS cash generation source. Here is the final output:Simulation, digital twins, and robotics software let engineers build and test virtual replicas of physical products, factories, and systems before committing real materials. The core product is physics-simulation software — tools that model heat, stress, fluid flow, electromagnetics, collisions, and deformable objects on a computer. The market is broadening from traditional engineering simulation (aerospace, automotive, electronics) into robotic training environments where autonomous agents run millions of scenarios in virtual worlds instead of the real one. Three names anchor the group: Synopsys (SNPS), which acquired Ansys in January 2025 for ~$35B, making ANSS no longer a separate stock; PTC, which sells product-lifecycle and digital-twin software; and Autodesk (ADSK), which sells design, engineering, and simulation tools across construction, manufacturing, and media. NVIDIA's Omniverse/Isaac platform is a significant entrant on the robotics-simulation side but sits inside NVDA's data-center segment, not a listed pure-play here.
Demand for simulation software grows with the number and complexity of things being designed — chips, cars, robots, data centers, buildings. Supply is limited not by factories but by the small number of firms with decades of physics-solver code and deeply embedded customer workflows. ANSS (Ansys) is no longer a separate stock; it was acquired by Synopsys (SNPS), closed January 2025.
Three distinct product categories sit under this umbrella, sold by different companies to overlapping but distinct buyer sets:
All three businesses are capital-light: the cost of producing one more licence is near zero (it is software), so a high fraction of each incremental dollar of revenue falls to operating profit. The capital investment is R&D engineers, not factories. Capex across all three is single-digit percentages of revenue: SNPS $169M, PTC $11M, ADSK $76M in their most recent fiscal years.
Revenue figures: SNPS 10-K (FY Oct 2025), PTC 10-K (FY Sep 2025), ADSK 10-K (FY Jan 2026). Ansys pre-acquisition revenue from ANSS FY2024 10-K.
These companies sell multi-year software subscriptions. The amount already paid for but not yet recognised as revenue appears on the balance sheet as deferred revenue (money collected from customers for future service):
| Company | Current deferred revenue | Non-current deferred revenue | Total deferred | As % of TTM revenue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNPS | $2.42B | $0.39B | $2.81B | 32% |
| PTC | $0.76B | $0.01B | $0.77B | 26% |
| ADSK | $4.21B | $0.25B | $4.46B | 59% |
Source: most recent quarterly balance sheets — SNPS Q2 FY2026 (Apr 2026), PTC Q2 FY2026 (Mar 2026), ADSK Q1 FY2027 (Apr 2026). contracted
PTC and Synopsys also report RPO (remaining performance obligation — contracted future revenue including amounts not yet invoiced). SNPS disclosed ~$9.3B in RPO as of October 2025, which includes the Ansys backlog. PTC disclosed ~$2.1B in current RPO as of September 2025. contracted
This is software. There is no factory, no wafer fab, no power plant. The marginal cost of serving one more customer is near zero. "Supply" here means who is capable of producing tools good enough that engineers will use them.
Building a credible multiphysics simulation platform takes decades. Ansys was founded in 1970; its solver code base and customer-validated physics models have 50+ years of accumulation. PTC's Creo/Windchill platform dates to the 1980s (as Pro/ENGINEER). Autodesk's AutoCAD was first released in 1982. A customer's engineering team builds years of workflows, templates, and institutional knowledge around one vendor's tools. Switching mid-project is prohibitively expensive — not because of the licence fee, but because of retraining engineers, re-validating simulation results, and converting file formats. Renewal rates for all three companies are reported above 90%. est.
NVIDIA Omniverse / Isaac Sim targets a different use case — training embodied AI agents in virtual worlds. It is not a replacement for traditional multiphysics (Ansys) or CAD/PLM (PTC, Autodesk). NVIDIA bundles it with its GPU/compute stack, which gives it a distribution advantage in the robotics-training niche.
Open-source alternatives exist (OpenFOAM for CFD, FreeCAD, Blender for 3D) but lack the validation, support, regulatory certification, and integration that enterprise customers require. est.
Source: 500-stocks robotics scan (sub-section 12), general industry knowledge.
Demand for simulation software is rising structurally (more things designed, more complex physics, new robotics-training use case). The number of credible vendors has been flat for decades because the barriers are accumulated code and customer lock-in, not capital. The imbalance shows up not as shortages or wait times (it is software) but as pricing power, high renewal rates, and expanding revenue per customer. est.
| Factor | Demand side | Supply side |
|---|---|---|
| Direction | Rising — more designs, more physics complexity, new robotics/digital-twin use cases | Flat — same few vendors for decades |
| What sets the limit | Number and complexity of things being designed + simulated | Decades of validated solver code + high switching costs |
| Can the limit be relieved fast? | n/a (demand pull) | No — 10–20+ years to build a credible rival est. |
| Tightness signal | 90%+ renewal rates, growing RPO/backlog, rising revenue per customer est. | No new entrant has displaced an incumbent in 20+ years est. |
| Pricing direction | Upward. Vendors are shifting to usage-based and token/compute-based pricing alongside subscriptions. AI features create a new premium tier. est. | |
| Oversupply risk | Low in traditional simulation. In the robotics-simulation niche, NVIDIA is a well-funded entrant that could compress margins for anyone competing there directly. A separate risk is AI reducing the need for human-driven simulation (fewer seats). forecast | |
| Company | Ticker | TTM Revenue | Gross Margin | TTM FCF | Market Cap | Core simulation exposure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Synopsys (incl. Ansys) | SNPS | $8.68B | 82.6% | $3.54B | $95.4B | ~30–35% of revenue from Ansys (multiphysics simulation); remainder is EDA (chip design software) + IP est. |
| PTC | PTC | $3.00B | 84.7% | $0.99B | $16.1B | PLM (Windchill), CAD (Creo), IoT/digital twins (ThingWorx), AR (Vuforia), field service (ServiceMax). ~100% subscription. |
| Autodesk | ADSK | $7.51B | 92.4% | $3.06B | $48.5B | AEC ~45% of revenue; manufacturing ~25%; media/entertainment ~5%; remainder platform. Simulation sits inside manufacturing (Fusion 360). est. |
| Ansys | ANSS | No longer a separate stock — acquired by SNPS, closed January 2025 for ~$35B. Pre-acquisition annual revenue ~$2.3B (FY2023). Now consolidated inside SNPS. | ||||
| Company | FY-3 | FY-2 | FY-1 | Latest FY | CAGR (3yr) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNPS (Oct FY) | $4.62B (FY22) | $5.32B (FY23) | $6.13B (FY24) | $7.05B (FY25) | 15.2% |
| PTC (Sep FY) | $1.93B (FY22) | $2.10B (FY23) | $2.30B (FY24) | $2.74B (FY25) | 12.3% |
| ADSK (Jan FY) | $5.01B (FY23) | $5.50B (FY24) | $6.13B (FY25) | $7.21B (FY26) | 12.9% |
Source: company 10-K filings. SNPS FY25 revenue does not include a full year of Ansys (acquisition closed Jan 2025; Ansys consolidated from Q2 FY25 onward). TTM revenue of $8.68B reflects ~3 full quarters of Ansys contribution.
| Company | Operating cash flow | Capex | Free cash flow | FCF margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNPS (FY Oct 2025) | $1.52B | $0.17B | $1.35B | 19% |
| PTC (FY Sep 2025) | $0.87B | $0.01B | $0.86B | 31% |
| ADSK (FY Jan 2026) | $2.45B | $0.08B | $2.38B | 33% |
Source: company 10-K cash flow statements. SNPS FY25 FCF includes Ansys acquisition-related costs (amortisation, integration); TTM FCF run-rate is higher (~$3.5B).
| Metric | SNPS | PTC | ADSK |
|---|---|---|---|
| Share price | $498 | $140 | $230 |
| Market cap | $95.4B | $16.1B | $48.5B |
| Enterprise value | $103.7B | $17.1B | $48.2B |
| Net debt (debt minus cash) | $8.4B | $0.9B | -$0.2B (net cash) |
| EV / TTM revenue | 11.9x | 5.7x | 6.4x |
| TTM P/E | ~123x | ~13x | ~33x |
| EV / TTM FCF | 29.3x | 17.3x | 15.8x |
| FCF yield (FCF / market cap) | 3.7% | 6.1% | 6.3% |
| 52-week range | $376 – $652 | $131 – $220 | $214 – $329 |
| Revenue per share (TTM) | $45.33 | $25.97 | $35.58 |
SNPS: TTM P/E of ~123x reflects GAAP earnings depressed by amortisation of $36B+ in acquired Ansys intangible assets and integration costs. On a cash-flow basis the business generated $3.5B in TTM FCF, putting EV/TTM FCF at 29.3x. $8.4B in net debt was taken on to fund the Ansys acquisition.
PTC: TTM P/E of ~13x includes a one-time gain in Q2 FY2026 (Mar 2026) that inflated GAAP earnings. $16.1B market cap corresponds to $3.0B in revenue and ~$1B in annual FCF. $0.9B in net debt.
ADSK: $48.5B market cap corresponds to $7.5B in revenue and $3.1B in FCF. Roughly net-cash ($2.9B cash vs $2.7B debt).
Simulation-specific exposure: None of these is a pure-play on simulation alone. SNPS is primarily EDA with Ansys simulation at ~30–35% of combined revenue est.. PTC is PLM/CAD where digital twins are one product line. ADSK's simulation features sit inside Fusion 360, a minority of total revenue dominated by AEC.
Prices and derived metrics as of June 2, 2026. Source: yfinance live quotes + most recent quarterly filings.
Primary source: /Users/ravf/projects/work/.claude/worktrees/sector-b3/research/investments/500-stocks/08-robotics-automation.html (sub-section 12); live yfinance data pulled June 2, 2026; company 10-K and 10-Q filings (SNPS FY Oct 2025, PTC FY Sep 2025, ADSK FY Jan 2026).