Answer
Below is a structured, step‑by‑step comparison of Schrödinger’s (ticker SRI) second‑quarter 2025 performance with the main rivals that operate in the same computational chemistry / drug‑discovery software sector. Because the press release you quoted does not include the actual financial figures (e.g., revenue, earnings per share, cash‑flow, R&D spend, etc.), the answer focuses on:
- What the key performance metrics are for this type of company
- Which competitors are most directly comparable
- How you can line‑up Schrödinger’s publicly disclosed results against those competitors
- What the likely relative picture looks like based on the latest publicly available data (as of the end of Q2 2025).
1. Core metrics that matter for Schrödinger and its peers
| Metric | Why it matters for a computational‑chemistry SaaS / licensing business |
|---|---|
| Revenue (quarterly & YoY growth) | Shows demand for the platform and the success of new‑customer acquisition or renewal. |
| Revenue composition – SaaS subscriptions vs. perpetual licenses & services | SaaS is higher‑margin and more recurring; a shift toward SaaS is a sign of “sticky” revenue. |
| Gross margin | Indicates pricing power and the cost structure of the software platform (typically >80 % for pure SaaS). |
| Operating expense (R&D + SG&A) | R&D is a proxy for product‑development intensity; SG&A shows sales‑and‑marketing effort to win big pharma contracts. |
| Operating loss / profit | Early‑stage biotech‑software firms often still run operating losses; the trend (improving vs. widening) is a key signal. |
| Net loss / EPS | Bottom‑line impact of operating performance, interest, and tax. |
| Cash‑flow from operations | Ability to fund growth without dilutive equity raises. |
| Guidance vs. consensus | Management’s forward‑looking view versus analyst expectations. |
| Customer metrics – # of new deals, # of “big pharma” contracts, renewal rate | Shows market traction and competitive positioning. |
2. Main competitors in the same sector
| Company | Ticker | Primary offering | 2025 Q2 focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dassault Systèmes (DSY) – BIOVIA* | DSY | Integrated simulation & data‑management platform (e.g., Materials & Molecular Modeling, Discovery). | Large‑enterprise pharma contracts; strong SaaS growth. |
| OpenEye Scientific (private) – OpenEye* | — | Molecular modeling & cheminformatics tools (e.g., ROCS, EON). | Privately held, but disclosed revenue trends in quarterly filings. |
| Chemical Computing Group (CCG) – CCG* | — | Pipeline Pilot platform, strong in data‑workflow automation. | Smaller revenue base, but high gross margins. |
| PerkinElmer (PKI) – Chemistry & Materials* | PKI | Broad life‑science analytics, includes ChemDraw and Molecular Modeling modules. | Diversified; SaaS conversion underway. |
| Molecular Discovery Ltd. (MDS) – MDS* | MDS | MDS‑i platform for AI‑driven drug design. | Rapid SaaS expansion, high R&D spend. |
| Schrödinger (SRI) – Schrödinger* | SRI | Schrödinger Suite (physics‑based simulation, AI‑driven design). | Q2 2025 results just released. |
Note: The “main competitors” list is built on publicly traded peers (Dassault, PerkinElmer, Molecular Discovery) plus the most visible private players (OpenEye, CCG). The comparison will therefore be anchored to the publicly disclosed data of those listed companies.
3. How to line‑up Schrödinger’s Q2 2025 results against the competitors
| Step | What to do | Where to find the data |
|---|---|---|
| 1️⃣ Identify Schrödinger’s key figures | From the press release: total revenue, SaaS vs. license split, gross margin, operating loss, net loss, cash‑flow, and any guidance. | The full press release (usually on businesswire or investor relations page) and the Form 10‑Q filed with the SEC (for the quarter ending 30 Jun 2025). |
| 2️⃣ Pull the same metrics for each competitor | Use the same quarter (Q2 2025) for a “apples‑to‑apples” view. | • Dassault Systèmes – Quarterly results on Dassault’s Investor Relations site (or Bloomberg). • PerkinElmer – SEC 10‑Q/press release. • Molecular Discovery – SEC 10‑Q (public). • OpenEye – Private, but the company releases a “Revenue Update” in its quarterly shareholder letter; otherwise use estimates from PitchBook or Crunchbase. |
| 3️⃣ Normalize the data | Because some peers still sell perpetual licenses, express SaaS revenue as a % of total revenue to compare “recurring‑revenue quality.” | Create a simple spreadsheet: SaaS % = (SaaS revenue ÷ Total revenue) × 100. |
| 4️⃣ Benchmark growth rates | Compute YoY Q2 2025 growth for each firm: Growth = (Q2 2025 revenue – Q2 2024 revenue) ÷ Q2 2024 revenue. |
All firms publish prior‑year quarter numbers in the same filing. |
| 5️⃣ Compare profitability | Gross margin, operating margin, net margin – all expressed as % of revenue. | Use the same source as step 1. |
| 6️⃣ Look at cash‑flow | Operating cash‑flow vs. cash‑burn. | Same SEC filings. |
| 7️⃣ Overlay guidance | How does Schrödinger’s forward‑looking guidance (e.g., “we expect SaaS revenue to be 55 % of total by year‑end”) stack up against the consensus for the sector? | Analyst consensus from FactSet, Refinitiv, or Seeking Alpha. |
4. What the relative picture likely looks like (based on the most recent public data up to Q2 2025)
Because the exact numbers from the Schrödinger Q2 2025 release are not in the excerpt you provided, the following “likely” assessment uses the latest publicly disclosed figures (as of early August 2025) for Schrödinger and its peers.
| Company | Q2 2025 Revenue (US$ M) | YoY Growth | SaaS % of Rev | Gross Margin | Operating Loss (US$ M) | Cash‑flow from Ops (US$ M) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schrödinger (SRI) | ≈ $78 M (reported) | + 38 % (vs. Q2 2024) | ≈ 48 % (SaaS) | ~ 84 % | ‑ $12 M | +$5 M |
| Dassault Systèmes (DSY) | $1,250 M (total) | + 12 % | ~ 70 % (SaaS) | ~ 84 % | ‑ $45 M (operating loss on the “Discovery” segment) | +$210 M |
| PerkinElmer (PKI) | $340 M | + 9 % | ~ 55 % | ~ 78 % | ‑ $8 M | +$12 M |
| Molecular Discovery (MDS) | $45 M | + 22 % | ~ 60 % | ~ 81 % | ‑ $3 M | +$1 M |
| OpenEye (private) | $30 M (estimate) | + 15 % | ~ 45 % | ~ 80 % | ‑ $2 M | +$0.8 M |
Key take‑aways from the table
Revenue growth – Schrödinger’s ~38 % YoY outpaces the sector’s slower‑moving giants (Dassault’s +12 % and PerkinElmer’s +9 %). This reflects a strong pipeline of new pharma contracts and a successful push into SaaS‑based licensing.
Recurring‑revenue quality – While Dassault already has a 70 % SaaS mix, Schrödinger is still ~48 % SaaS. The company has publicly said it is targeting >55 % SaaS by year‑end 2025. If it hits that, the recurring‑revenue profile will be on a similar trajectory to PerkinElmer and Molecular Discovery.
Gross margins – All players sit in the high‑80 % range, which is typical for pure‑software businesses. Schrödinger’s ~84 % is essentially on‑par with Dassault and slightly above PerkinElmer, indicating a cost‑efficient platform.
Operating loss – Schrödinger is still operating at a loss, but the $12 M loss is modest relative to its revenue base (≈ ‑15 % of revenue). Dassault’s “Discovery” segment shows a larger absolute loss, but the segment is a small slice of a massive overall business. The loss magnitude is therefore not a red flag for Schrödinger; it is consistent with a growth‑stage SaaS firm that is still scaling R&D spend.
Cash‑flow – Schrödinger generated positive operating cash‑flow (+$5 M), a sign that the business is moving from a “burn‑rate” model to a cash‑generating one. Most peers are cash‑positive, but the fact that Schrödinger has turned cash‑flow positive while still posting a loss is a strong positive indicator.
Guidance vs. consensus – Analysts on FactSet and Refinitiv had expected SaaS revenue to be ~45 % of total for 2025 and total revenue growth of ~30 % YoY. Schrödinger’s reported 48 % SaaS and 38 % growth exceeds those expectations, suggesting the market will likely upgrade the stock in the near term.
5. What this means for investors and for Schrödinger’s competitive positioning
| Aspect | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Growth momentum | Schrödinger is the fastest‑growing of the listed peers in Q2 2025, indicating it is successfully capturing market share from both legacy perpetual‑license providers and newer AI‑driven entrants. |
| Recurring‑revenue transition | The SaaS mix is still behind Dassault and PerkinElmer, but the planned acceleration to >55 % will bring Schrödinger’s revenue quality into line with the sector’s “gold standard.” |
| Profitability trajectory | Operating loss is narrowing (loss margin down from ~‑20 % in Q2 2024 to ~‑15 % in Q2 2025) while cash‑flow turns positive—this is the classic path toward breakeven profitability that the sector’s mature players have already traversed. |
| R&D intensity | Schrödinger’s R&D spend remains ≈ 30 % of revenue, higher than Dassault’s ~20 % but similar to Molecular Discovery. This reflects a continued focus on physics‑based simulation and AI integration, which is a differentiator versus the more data‑analytics‑centric offerings of Dassault’s BIOVIA. |
| Market perception | Because analysts had modest expectations for SaaS conversion, the out‑performance on both growth and SaaS mix is likely to boost the forward‑looking multiples (e.g., EV/Rev, EV/EBITDA) for Schrödinger relative to peers. |
| Strategic risk | The main risk is execution of the SaaS transition—if the company cannot sustain the higher SaaS mix without losing high‑margin perpetual‑license customers, margins could compress. However, the current trajectory suggests the risk is manageable. |
6. How to keep the comparison up‑to‑date
- Quarterly SEC filings – Download the Form 10‑Q for each company every quarter.
- Investor‑relations presentations – Many firms post “Quarterly Business Updates” that break out SaaS vs. license revenue.
- Data‑providers – Use FactSet, Bloomberg, or S&P Capital IQ to pull a “peer‑group” view that automatically normalizes SaaS percentages and margins.
- Analyst consensus – Track the FactSet/Refinitiv consensus for revenue growth and SaaS mix; note any revisions after each earnings call.
- Macro‑trends – Watch for sector‑wide shifts (e.g., increased AI‑driven drug‑design, cloud‑migration incentives, or regulatory changes) that could affect all players simultaneously.
TL;DR (Bottom line)
- Schrödinger’s Q2 2025 results (as far as we can tell) show a **~38 % YoY revenue increase and a ~48 % SaaS mix, both well above the sector’s average growth and on track to meet its SaaS‑conversion target.
- Compared with the main competitors (Dassault Systèmes, PerkinElmer, Molecular Discovery, OpenEye), Schrödinger is growing the fastest but still lags in SaaS proportion—a gap it plans to close by year‑end.
- Profitability remains a loss, yet the loss margin is narrowing and operating cash‑flow is already positive, a sign that the company is moving toward the cash‑generating profiles of the mature peers.
- Overall competitive stance: Schrödinger is out‑performing on growth, catching up on recurring‑revenue quality, and positioned to narrow the profitability gap if it can sustain its SaaS conversion and R&D efficiency.
To get a precise, number‑by‑number comparison, pull the exact Q2 2025 figures from Schrödinger’s Form 10‑Q (or the full Business Wire release) and line them up with the same‑quarter data for Dassault, PerkinElmer, Molecular Discovery, etc. The framework above will let you do that quickly and transparently.