BackCognizant Technology Solutions Overview

Cognizant Technology Solutions Receivables

Track Cognizant Technology Solutions's receivables ($4.8B) with charts, peers, and YoY trends.

Get informed when a big investor buys or sells

+ Follow
Receivables
$4.78B
↑ 8.59% YoYΔ $378.00M vs prior year quarter

Peer trimmed avg / median

Loading

Cognizant Technology Solutions Receivables History

Loading

Cognizant Technology Solutions vs. peers: Receivables Comparison

Loading

Cognizant Technology Solutions Receivables Growth (YoY per quarter)

Latest change versus the prior comparable period (same company).

Loading

Cognizant Technology Solutions (CTSH) FAQ

Cognizant Technology Solutions posts a receivables of $4.8B as of June 2026. That compares with $4.4B in the prior-year period — up 8.6% year over year. Comparing that reading with peers and prior periods is usually more useful than looking at the number in isolation.

In the prior comparable period, Cognizant Technology Solutions's receivables was $4.4B. The latest reading is $4.8B — a 8.6% year-over-year increase (period ending June 2026). Use the history and growth charts on this page for a longer lookback.

Receivables is one piece of Cognizant Technology Solutions's financial statement story. At $4.8B, it should be interpreted next to related metrics — for example revenue with costs, assets with liabilities, or income with margins. Stockcircle links those related pages so you can move from this number to the surrounding context quickly.

Context for CTSH's receivables usually means three checks: (1) trend versus prior periods, (2) level versus peers, and (3) consistency with growth and profitability. This page covers the first two; Cognizant Technology Solutions's other metric pages and overview cover the third.

Judging Cognizant Technology Solutions against Technology peers is usually better than using a market-wide rule of thumb. Business models inside Technology are more comparable, which makes gaps in receivables easier to interpret. Start with $4.8B here, then scan peer and history charts to see if the gap is persistent.