Manhattan Associates (MANH) — Comparable Company Analysis
Published · Data as of 2026-10-19 close; filings through 2026-10-20. Figures are as of the dates shown and will not be updated.
How this report was made. An AI research agent (Claude Code running Anthropic's open-source finance skills, adapted by bests.one) produced this report on 2026-10-20 using only free data: SEC EDGAR filings and XBRL, FRED, and unofficial Yahoo Finance prices. No web-sourced figures were used. A separate AI checking pass compared 17 figures with the original sources (SEC filings, FRED); all matched except where noted. Reviewed by bests.one on 2026-10-20. The run took about 2 minutes and cost about $0.44 in compute. Read the method: How we test.
Educational sample, not investment advice. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. bests.one is independent and not affiliated with NVIDIA, Microsoft, Manhattan Associates, Anthropic, or any data provider mentioned.
Known limitations of this run. ACIW's $14.1M of other current notes payable is not included in its debt (the free data tag is not mapped yet); the effect on ACIW's multiples is negligible.
Analysis date: 2026-10-20 | Prices: Yahoo Finance chart data (unofficial), last close 2026-10-19 16:00 exchange local time; snapshot run 2026-10-20 13:11 UTC | Basis: LTM (latest four fiscal quarters from SEC XBRL) for every company, so fiscal year-ends do not matter. Units: $ in millions (converted once from raw USD); multiples in x; margins and growth in %. Data provenance: All figures below are SEC-verified / Yahoo-sourced (us-free-finance MCP: EDGAR XBRL, filings, Yahoo prices). No web-sourced numbers are used. No forward/consensus data (see Data gaps).
1. Peer set — selection and rationale
MANH (SIC 7372, enterprise supply-chain commerce software: WMS, TMS, OMS) has few pure-play listed US peers. The peer sources were (a) the 2026 DEF 14A compensation peer group (get_peer_candidates, filed 2026-04-02), (b) the competition passage of the FY2025 10-K (filed 2026-02-04), which names Oracle, SAP and Salesforce. The proxy group is chosen for size and talent market, so I screened it for business model (mission-critical, vertical, subscription/maintenance-heavy enterprise software, similar scale) and added nothing from outside EDGAR.
Included (7, in statistics):
| Peer | Why comparable | Source |
|---|---|---|
| SPSC SPS Commerce | Closest product overlap: cloud supply-chain / retail-network software (EDI, fulfillment, analytics) | DEF 14A |
| GWRE Guidewire | Mission-critical vertical enterprise platform, cloud transition, similar revenue/cap scale (~$14B cap). Business is insurance, not supply chain | DEF 14A (size/model) |
| TYL Tyler Technologies | Vertical mission-critical software, recurring revenue, similar cap. Public-sector end market | DEF 14A (size/model) |
| PTC PTC Inc. | Industrial/manufacturing enterprise software (PLM/CAD) sold to the same manufacturer/distributor buyers | DEF 14A |
| ACIW ACI Worldwide | Real-time transaction-processing enterprise software, license + SaaS mix; payments end market | DEF 14A (model) |
| BSY Bentley Systems | Infrastructure engineering software, high gross margin, similar cap | DEF 14A (size/model) |
| BLKB Blackbaud | Vertical cloud software, ~$1.1B revenue (same revenue scale as MANH). Nonprofit end market; ~0% growth | DEF 14A (size) |
Most of these are there for size/business model, not product overlap. Only SPSC (and, outside the stats, Descartes) overlaps in supply-chain software. Treat the range as a "scaled vertical/enterprise software" benchmark.
Reference only, not in statistics: DSGX Descartes Systems (logistics/supply-chain software, the best product peer). It files 40-F with annual data only (FY ended 2026-01-31, 40-F filed 2026-03-11, accession 0001104659-26-026450): no quarterly LTM, share count dated 2026-01-31, so excluded from statistics; shown in a separate row.
Rejected:
- Oracle, SAP, Salesforce (named in the 10-K): diversified mega-caps; supply chain is a small part of the business; SAP is a foreign filer.
- Blue Yonder, Körber, Kinaxis, E2open and other direct competitors: private, foreign-listed or (E2open) not in the EDGAR matches. Not checked further with free tools.
- FICO: pulled, but credit-scoring monopoly economics (52% operating margin) and $5.6B of debt make it unrepresentative. Workiva (WK): pulled, but 3% operating margin makes EV/EBITDA (98x) and P/E (89x) uninformative. Neither is in the statistics.
- HubSpot, Paylocity, AppFolio, Qualys, Dynatrace, Elastic, Commvault (DEF 14A): horizontal or different-vertical SaaS (marketing, HR, property mgmt, security, observability, data protection) with no supply-chain link. Not pulled.
- Aspen Technology, Dayforce, Q2, Smartsheet (listed in the proxy table): no current SEC ticker matched by the tool (likely acquired or taken private; not verified).
2. Operating metrics (LTM, $ in millions)
| Company | LTM period end | Revenue | Rev growth | Gross margin | Op. margin | EBITDA¹ | EBITDA margin | Net income |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MANH | 2026-06-30 | 1,126.2 | 6.5% | 55.8% | 24.3% | 280.7 | 24.9% | 210.2 |
| SPSC | 2026-06-30 | 772.5 | 9.8% | 69.8% | 12.8% | 122.0 | 15.8% | 78.0 |
| GWRE | FY2026 Q4 (Jul-26) | 1,475.4 | 22.7% | 64.2% | 10.2% | 177.8 | 12.1% | 139.3 |
| TYL | 2026-06-30 | 2,429.7 | 8.2% | 47.2% | 15.1% | 512.0 | 21.1% | 324.6 |
| PTC | FY2026 Q3 (Jun-26) | 2,954.0 | 19.5% | 84.5% | 37.8% | 1,216.9 | 41.2% | 1,223.8 |
| ACIW | 2026-06-30 | 1,820.1 | 7.0% | 49.1% | 18.6% | 436.7 | 24.0% | 225.7 |
| BSY | 2026-06-30 | 1,602.0 | 12.9% | 81.8% | 23.6% | n/a² | n/a² | 290.0 |
| BLKB | 2026-06-30 | 1,148.1 | 0.7% | 59.6% | 19.8% | 311.3 | 27.1% | 150.7 |
| DSGX (reference, FY ended 2026-01-31, annual) | 2026-01-31 | 729.0 | 12.0% | 77.1% | 28.8% | n/a | n/a | 163.8 |
¹ EBITDA = GAAP operating income + D&A from the cash-flow statement (unadjusted, SBC not added back). ² BSY: D&A tagged in only two of the latest four quarters, so LTM EBITDA is not computed (not invented).
Peer statistics (7 peers; EBITDA margin 6 peers):
| Metric | Max | 75th | Median | 25th | Min | MANH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth | 22.7% | 16.2% | 9.8% | 7.6% | 0.7% | 6.5% |
| Gross margin | 84.5% | 75.8% | 64.2% | 54.4% | 47.2% | 55.8% |
| Operating margin | 37.8% | 21.7% | 18.6% | 14.0% | 10.2% | 24.3% |
| EBITDA margin | 41.2% | 26.3% | 22.5% | 17.1% | 12.1% | 24.9% |
(Percentiles use linear interpolation, Excel QUARTILE.INC convention.)
3. Valuation multiples (LTM; price 2026-10-19 close; $ in millions)
| Company | Price ($) | Market cap | Total debt | Cash + ST inv. | EV | EV/Revenue | EV/EBITDA | P/E (LTM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MANH | 225.43 | 13,143.7 | none found³ | 186.1 | 12,957.6 | 11.51x | 46.17x | 62.52x |
| SPSC | 85.42 | 3,075.1 | none found³ | 173.2 | 2,902.0 | 3.76x | 23.79x | 39.42x |
| GWRE | 171.44 | 14,056.8 | 678.1 | 753.1 | 13,981.9 | 9.48x | 78.63x | 100.92x |
| TYL | 360.09 | 14,746.5 | 1,408.7 | 970.0 | 15,185.2 | 6.25x | 29.66x | 45.43x |
| PTC | 193.06 | 20,948.2 | 1,398.2 | 351.5 | 21,995.0 | 7.45x | 18.07x | 17.12x⁴ |
| ACIW | 52.22 | 5,271.9 | 822.2 | 167.4 | 5,926.7 | 3.26x | 13.57x | 23.36x |
| BSY | 36.73 | 11,095.9⁵ | 1,217.2 | 147.0 | 12,166.1 | 7.59x | n/a | 38.27x |
| BLKB | 53.24 | 2,416.6 | 1,150.0 | 34.4 | 3,532.2 | 3.08x | 11.35x | 16.04x |
| DSGX (reference; FY2026 annual, stale share count) | 86.66 | 7,454.9 | none found³ | 356.5 | 7,098.4 | 9.74x | n/a | 45.5x |
³ No debt XBRL tag found, treated as 0 by the tool. SPSC: total liabilities of $186.9M (mostly current) are consistent with no borrowings. MANH and DSGX: the balance sheet / debt footnote was not read, so zero debt is unverified. Operating leases are excluded for every company. ⁴ PTC net income ($1,223.8M) exceeds its operating income ($1,117.0M), which suggests a below-the-line gain or tax benefit. I did not investigate it, so PTC's P/E may be understated. ⁵ BSY market cap sums Class A + B shares 1:1 (tool flag); economic ratio not checked. GWRE debt: components sum to $678.1M vs $720.2M carrying-amount tag (tool flag; not reconciled).
Peer statistics (7 peers; EV/EBITDA 6 peers):
| Multiple | Max | 75th | Median | 25th | Min | MANH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EV/Revenue | 9.48x | 7.52x | 6.25x | 3.51x | 3.08x | 11.51x |
| EV/EBITDA | 78.63x | 28.19x | 20.93x | 14.70x | 11.35x | 46.17x |
| EV/EBITDA, ex-GWRE (5) | 29.66x | 23.79x | 18.07x | 13.57x | 11.35x | 46.17x |
| P/E (LTM, GAAP) | 100.92x | 42.43x | 38.27x | 20.24x | 16.04x | 62.52x |
GWRE is the outlier on EV/EBITDA and P/E (10% operating margin mid-transition), hence the ex-GWRE row. It is kept in the main statistics.
4. Where MANH sits and why
- EV/Revenue 11.5x is above the top of the peer range (max 9.5x, GWRE; median 6.3x). EV/EBITDA 46.2x and P/E 62.5x are above the 75th percentile (28.2x / 42.4x) but below GWRE's inflated 78.6x / 100.9x. Against the ex-GWRE set, MANH's 46.2x is above every peer.
- Profitability supports part of a premium. MANH's 24.3% operating margin is above the 75th percentile (21.7%) and second only to PTC (37.8%). Its EBITDA margin (24.9%) is just above the median, and it carries no debt in the data (see note 3).
- Growth does not. LTM revenue growth of 6.5% is below the median (9.8%) and 25th percentile (7.6%). Gross margin (55.8%) is also near the 25th percentile (likely a services-heavy revenue mix, but I did not check the revenue breakdown in the 10-K).
- Net: on LTM data, MANH trades at a premium to the peer range that margins alone do not explain. Free data cannot test the usual explanations (market-implied future growth, cloud transition, RPO or backlog quality, scarcity of pure-play supply-chain software), so I do not assign a cause. Forward multiples would be needed to see whether the premium narrows.
- Caveat: most peers are in other end markets (see section 1), so the position is relative to scaled enterprise software, not to supply-chain peers specifically. The one product peer in the stats (SPSC, 3.8x revenue) is at a very different scale and margin; Descartes (9.7x revenue on stale annual data) is closer to MANH.
5. Notes and methodology
- Peer selection:
get_peer_candidates(DEF 14A + 10-K), screened by business and size, SIC 7372 verified via snapshot for all but FICO (7389). I did not callget_company_profilewith a business excerpt for each peer; business descriptions in section 1 are from general knowledge of these companies plus the SIC code, not from reading each 10-K Item 1. - All peers run in one
get_comps_snapshotcall, so every price comes from the same run. Market cap = price × cover-page shares outstanding (dates 2026-07-17 to 2026-08-31 for the included peers). EV = market cap + total debt − cash − current marketable securities. - LTM = sum of latest four fiscal quarters; some quarters are derived from YTD by the tool. P/E = market cap / LTM GAAP net income; no one-off adjustments (PTC flagged, not adjusted).
- Statistics: peers only (MANH excluded), linear-interpolated percentiles; no peers dropped from the main statistics.
- Descartes is a 40-F filer: US-GAAP-tagged annual data was available, but no quarterly series, so it is shown separately and not used for statistics.
- EBITDA is unadjusted GAAP operating income + D&A; MANH's D&A is small ($6.7M), so its EBITDA is close to operating income.
6. Sources
SEC filings (EDGAR):
- MANH 10-Q (period 2026-06-30), filed 2026-07-31: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1056696/000119312526327591/0001193125-26-327591-index.htm
- MANH 10-K (FY2025), filed 2026-02-04: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1056696/000119312526037138/0001193125-26-037138-index.htm
- MANH DEF 14A, filed 2026-04-02 (peer group): https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1056696/000119312526140024/0001193125-26-140024-index.htm
- MANH earnings 8-K (item 2.02), filed 2026-07-28: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1056696/000119312526320952/0001193125-26-320952-index.htm
- SPSC 10-Q, filed 2026-07-30: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1092699/000109269926000066/0001092699-26-000066-index.htm
- BSY 10-Q, filed 2026-08-06: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1031308/000103130826000023/0001031308-26-000023-index.htm
- DSGX 40-F, filed 2026-03-11: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1050140/000110465926026450/0001104659-26-026450-index.htm
- Other peers (GWRE, TYL, PTC, ACIW, BLKB): LTM built from their latest 10-K/10-Q XBRL via SEC companyfacts (
https://data.sec.gov/api/xbrl/companyfacts/CIK<10-digit CIK>.json; CIKs 1528396, 860731, 857005, 935036, 1280058). I did not collect per-accession filing links for these; periods are as labeled in the tables (latest quarter-end June 2026, GWRE July 2026).
Prices: Yahoo Finance chart data (unofficial), last close 2026-10-19; snapshot retrieved 2026-10-20 13:11 UTC. FRED / web sources: none used.
7. Data gaps
- No forward (NTM/FY+1) multiples and no consensus estimates. Free SEC/Yahoo data has none. I did not attempt the web-supplement route for 8 companies, so none are provided and none are invented. All multiples are LTM, GAAP-based.
- No RPO/backlog, ARR or segment KPIs pulled; these would help explain the premium but were not collected.
- Debt for MANH, SPSC and DSGX is "no tag found", treated as 0; only SPSC is corroborated by total liabilities. EV for these is unverified against the balance sheet.
- BSY EBITDA not computed (D&A tag incomplete); BSY and WK dual-class market caps summed 1:1.
- GWRE debt differs by $42M between the component sum and the carrying-amount tag.
- PTC net income looks inflated relative to operating income; P/E not adjusted.
- Descartes has only annual data (to 2026-01-31) and a January 2026 share count; no LTM.
- Direct competitors (Blue Yonder, Körber, Kinaxis, E2open) have no usable SEC data here and are not quantified.
- Peer business descriptions were not read from each peer's 10-K Item 1 (see section 5).
Research draft based on free public data (SEC EDGAR, FRED, Yahoo Finance); not investment advice.