Will Autodesk guide FY2027 revenue above $7.80B at the Q4 FY2026 earnings call?

FY2026 revenue is tracking to ~$7.15B (guidance raised twice, Q4 pre-announced above guidance). The $7.80B threshold requires only ~9% growth on the actual FY2026 base, well within Autodesk's organic growth trajectory of 8-10% even before any residual NTM tailwind. However, management explicitly withdrew its 10-15% long-term growth framework in Q4 FY2025, replacing it with 'consistent, resilient' framing — this creates a real possibility they guide conservatively below $7.80B to reset expectations. RPO of $7.4B (+20% YoY) and billings growth of 21% provide strong forward visibility that supports a guide above $7.80B, but the NTM normalization debate (300-500bps headwind) introduces uncertainty about how management frames FY2027.

The critical tension is between the math and the messaging. Mathematically, $7.80B on a ~$7.15B base is ~9.1% growth — well within the 8-10% organic growth range established by the committee. With even modest NTM residual tailwind, this should be achievable. But management's explicit decision to withdraw the 10-15% growth framework is a deliberate signal of caution. The unresolved NTM growth decomposition debate (HIGH materiality per committee) means management themselves may not have clean visibility on organic vs. NTM-inflated growth, leading to a wider guidance range that could start below $7.80B at the low end. AECO cyclical exposure (50% of revenue) also creates risk if construction spending moderates. The 35% minority position that expectations may be DEMANDING rather than MODEST adds further uncertainty.

The resolution criteria includes an important alternative: if FY2026 actual revenue materially exceeds the ~$6.12-6.13B base cited, evaluate YoY growth rate — YES if implied growth exceeds 12%. With FY2026 at ~$7.15B, a $7.80B guide implies only 9.1% growth, well below the 12% threshold in the alternative criteria. So the question functionally reduces to: will Autodesk guide FY2027 above $7.80B? Given Q4 pre-announced above guidance (suggesting FY2026 could land at $7.17-7.20B), the $7.80B midpoint requires $7.80/$7.18 = 8.6% growth at the minimum. This is within the organic growth range. However, Autodesk typically provides a guidance range (e.g., $7.60B-$7.80B could have a midpoint of $7.70B — below threshold). The risk is a wide initial range with the midpoint narrowly below $7.80B. RPO coverage ratio of ~1.03x FY2027 revenue at $7.80B provides some floor.

The math is straightforward: FY2026 revenue is ~$7.15B (raised twice, pre-announced above), so $7.80B is only ~9% growth. Autodesk's organic growth is 8-10% and there's residual NTM tailwind. RPO of $7.4B growing 20% practically guarantees revenue growth above 9%. The main risk is management deliberately guiding low to reset the narrative after withdrawing the 10-15% framework. But even conservative management typically guides to at least the bottom of the achievable range, and with RPO and billings momentum, it would be unusually conservative to guide below $7.80B. Probability is above coin-flip, solidly in YES territory.

Two competing forces: (1) The fundamental math supports $7.80B — 9% growth is below current organic trajectory and RPO/billings momentum is strong. (2) Management's narrative shift away from 10-15% growth targets suggests they want to under-promise. Autodesk has a history of conservative initial guidance (FY2026 started at $6.80-6.92B, ended at $7.15B). If they apply similar conservatism to FY2027, initial guidance could be $7.50-7.80B with a midpoint of $7.65B — below the $7.80B threshold despite fully intending to deliver above it. The committee's unresolved NTM decomposition debate (HIGH materiality) means management may also be genuinely uncertain about the organic growth rate, leading to wider guidance bands.

The revenue trajectory is clear: FY2026 started at $6.80B guidance and ended at $7.15B+ (pre-announced above). This 5%+ guidance raise over the year demonstrates management had significantly more visibility than initially communicated. For FY2027, even accounting for NTM normalization of 300-500bps, headline growth should be 12-15% (organic 8-10% + residual NTM 3-5%). On a $7.15B base, 12% growth = $8.01B, 10% = $7.87B, 9% = $7.79B. The threshold sits right at the 9% growth level, which is essentially the floor of reasonable expectations. Unless management deliberately sandbagged below the floor, $7.80B should be achievable as a midpoint. The withdrawal of the 10-15% framework is a modest negative but doesn't override the math.

FY2026 revenue ~$7.15B. $7.80B = 9% growth. Organic growth 8-10% plus residual NTM tailwind makes this achievable. RPO $7.4B (+20%) and billings +21% provide strong forward visibility. Main risk: management guides conservatively after withdrawing 10-15% growth framework. But 9% is below even the cautious organic range — likely above threshold.

The math favors YES: 9% growth on $7.15B reaches $7.80B, within organic growth range. But Autodesk's initial guidance is typically conservative — FY2026 started at $6.80B. If FY2027 initial guide follows the same pattern (starting ~5% below eventual delivery), midpoint could be $7.60-7.70B. The question is whether initial guidance midpoint hits $7.80B, not eventual delivery. This conservative initial guidance pattern reduces probability from the purely mathematical estimate.

RPO of $7.4B provides near-full coverage of $7.80B threshold. Billings +21% exceeding revenue growth signals accelerating demand. Q4 pre-announced above guidance shows execution momentum. NTM transition still provides some residual tailwind in FY2027. The 9% growth hurdle is modest. Management conservatism is a risk but RPO coverage and billings momentum suggest they have the confidence to guide above $7.80B.