VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★
PRICE: 0 CENTS
Tuesday, December 30, 2025
Synopsys, Inc.
SNPS · NASDAQ
Weighted average of segment moat scores, combining moat strength, durability, confidence, market structure, pricing power, and market share.
Request update
Spot something outdated? Send a quick note and source so we can refresh this profile.
Overview
Synopsys supplies software and hardware that enable silicon-to-systems engineering, spanning electronic design automation and semiconductor design IP. It reports two operating segments: Design Automation (EDA, verification, and simulation & analysis following the Ansys acquisition) and Design IP (interface, security, and embedded processor IP with licenses and royalties). The primary moat is workflow lock-in and limited-vendor market structure in mission-critical design tools, reinforced by broad portfolio bundling and large R&D scale. Key risks include export-control/regulatory constraints (notably China), large-customer bargaining power, and sustained competition from Cadence and Siemens EDA.
Primary segment
Design Automation
Market structure
Oligopoly
Market share
30%-32% (reported)
HHI: 2,140
Coverage
2 segments · 6 tags
Updated 2025-12-29
Segments
Design Automation
Electronic design automation (EDA) software and silicon-to-systems simulation & analysis tools
Revenue
75.2%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
30%-32% (reported)
Peers
Design IP
Semiconductor design IP (interface, foundation, security and embedded processor IP) licensing and royalties
Revenue
24.8%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
31%-33% (reported)
Peers
Moat Claims
Design Automation
Electronic design automation (EDA) software and silicon-to-systems simulation & analysis tools
Revenue share and operating profit share computed from FY2025 segment revenue ($5,302.3m) and segment adjusted operating income ($2,213.5m) versus totals in Synopsys FY2025 10-K.
Switching Costs General
Demand
Switching Costs General
Strength: 5/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
EDA and simulation tools are embedded in customer design flows and typically renewed via multi-year time-based licenses; switching requires requalification, retraining, and workflow retooling.
Erosion risks
- Large customers expand in-house EDA capabilities
- Open-source EDA tools improve for advanced nodes
- Export controls restrict sales in key geographies
Leading indicators
- Time-based product revenue growth
- Contracted backlog trend
- Customer renewals and expansion (deal sizes)
Counterarguments
- Customers can run multi-vendor flows and avoid single-vendor lock-in
- Major chipmakers have leverage to negotiate and to build internal tools
Suite Bundling
Demand
Suite Bundling
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Broad portfolio across design, verification, manufacturing and simulation supports enterprise agreements; bundling can crowd out point solutions and increases procurement inertia.
Erosion risks
- Best-of-breed tools outperform suites in specific workflow steps
- Procurement pushes vendor diversification
- Competitors bundle aggressively (Cadence/Siemens)
Leading indicators
- Mix of multi-product agreements vs point purchases
- Cross-sell rates into adjacent tool categories
- Discounting intensity / deal margin pressure
Counterarguments
- Design teams can unbundle and choose best-of-breed per task
- Open standards reduce the need to buy a single integrated suite
Capex Knowhow Scale
Supply
Capex Knowhow Scale
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
High R&D scale and accumulated know-how enable full-stack EDA and silicon-to-systems offerings (including AI-driven tooling); this raises barriers for new entrants.
Erosion risks
- AI-native entrants reduce time/cost to build competitive point tools
- Merger integration distracts from product execution
- Talent retention challenges in key engineering roles
Leading indicators
- R&D as % of revenue
- Major product releases and node enablement cadence
- Competitive win/loss commentary
Counterarguments
- Incumbent peers also spend heavily on R&D (scale not unique)
- Some innovation can come from focused point tools rather than full suites
Design IP
Semiconductor design IP (interface, foundation, security and embedded processor IP) licensing and royalties
Revenue share and operating profit share computed from FY2025 segment revenue ($1,751.8m) and segment adjusted operating income ($419.3m) versus totals in Synopsys FY2025 10-K.
Design In Qualification
Demand
Design In Qualification
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Silicon-proven IP is designed into chips and qualified in a specific process/node; changing IP after integration can trigger re-verification and respins.
Erosion risks
- Interface IP commoditization for mature nodes
- Customers build/own more internal IP
- Alternative ecosystems (e.g., open-source cores) reduce reliance
Leading indicators
- Design IP revenue and backlog trend
- New protocol/node IP release cadence (PCIe/CXL/UCIe/DDR/HBM)
- Royalty revenue mix (if disclosed)
Counterarguments
- Many interfaces are standardized and can be dual-sourced
- Very large customers can negotiate aggressively or develop internal IP blocks
Installed Base Consumables
Demand
Installed Base Consumables
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
After a design win, royalties can produce recurring revenue tied to downstream chip shipments for the life of the customer's product.
Erosion risks
- Royalty rate compression in negotiations
- End-market cyclicality reduces unit volumes
- Technology transitions shorten product lifecycles
Leading indicators
- Customer tape-out activity and design win announcements
- Foundry/OSAT packaging roadmaps (chiplet adoption)
- Shipment trends in key end markets (HPC, mobile, automotive)
Counterarguments
- Royalty streams depend on customers' unit success, not guaranteed by IP selection alone
- Some deals are license-only with limited royalty tail
Evidence
two to three years
TSL duration and ongoing updates/support imply recurring workflow dependence that raises switching friction.
broader portfolio of solutions
Company describes customers negotiating across a broad portfolio of solutions/support, consistent with bundling dynamics.
R&D expenses $2,479.3
Large absolute R&D spend (and high revenue share) supports a scale/know-how moat in complex design software.
31% market shares
Provides vendor share snapshot for the EDA market; segment also includes simulation (Ansys) so this is not a full segment share.
Inputs for the HHI calculation.
Showing 5 of 8 sources.
Risks & Indicators
Erosion risks
- Large customers expand in-house EDA capabilities
- Open-source EDA tools improve for advanced nodes
- Export controls restrict sales in key geographies
- Best-of-breed tools outperform suites in specific workflow steps
- Procurement pushes vendor diversification
- Competitors bundle aggressively (Cadence/Siemens)
Leading indicators
- Time-based product revenue growth
- Contracted backlog trend
- Customer renewals and expansion (deal sizes)
- Mix of multi-product agreements vs point purchases
- Cross-sell rates into adjacent tool categories
- Discounting intensity / deal margin pressure
Curation & Accuracy
This directory blends AI‑assisted discovery with human curation. Entries are reviewed, edited, and organized with the goal of expanding coverage and sharpening quality over time. Your feedback helps steer improvements (because no single human can capture everything all at once).
Details change. Pricing, features, and availability may be incomplete or out of date. Treat listings as a starting point and verify on the provider’s site before making decisions. If you spot an error or a gap, send a quick note and I’ll adjust.