Homepage
AGING Analysis Report
Jun 14, 2026
12 days ago · 89% complete · +5 refreshed

Nebius Group N.V.

NBIS NASDAQ Categories PDF
Communication Services · Internet Content & Information
Amsterdam, 1082 ME, Netherlands IPO 2024 group.nebius.com Updated Jun 27, 8:07am
Price
$240.30
Market Cap
$57.7B
Employees
1,371
Beta
1.43
Avg Volume
17,533,366
CEO
Arkady Volozh
Business Description

Nebius Group N.V. is a technology company dedicated to developing comprehensive infrastructure to serve the global artificial intelligence industry. Its operations encompass several key areas. Central to its mission is Nebius, an AI-focused cloud platform engineered to handle demanding AI workloads. This division constructs end-to-end AI infrastructure, featuring extensive GPU computing clusters, robust cloud platforms, and essential tools and services for developers. The group also includes Toloka AI, which functions as a data solutions provider, assisting with various phases of generative AI development. TripleTen operates as an educational technology venture, focused on equipping individuals with new skills for careers in the tech sector. Furthermore, Avride specializes in pioneering autonomous driving technologies for self-driving vehicles and delivery robots. Founded in 1989, the company was previously known as Yandex N.V. until its rebranding to Nebius Group N.V. in August 2024. Its headquarters are located in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, with additional research and development facilities spread across Europe, North America, and Israel.

Business History
Generated: Jun 14, 2026 4:50pm
Price Overview
Last updated: Jun 27, 2026 9:05am (just now)
$240.30
-16.33 (-6.36%)
Day Range
$234.40 – $248.80
52-Week Range
$43.89 – $299.86
50-Day MA
$208.21
200-Day MA
$129.85
Volume
12,897,950.00
Analyst Price Targets
Low $129.00
Consensus $196.00
High $255.00
(18 analysts)
Share Structure
Outstanding 240,000,000.00
Float 202,005,635.00
Free Float 84.2%
High free float — 84.2% of shares trade freely, ~15.8% held by insiders/institutions
Very liquid — most shares trade freely. Low insider ownership can mean less management alignment, but makes large position sizing straightforward.
Price History (1 Year)
Last updated: Jun 27, 2026 8:07am (58m ago)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
The directional story — useful even when net income is negative.
Last updated: Jun 23, 2026 4:42pm (3d ago)
Revenue
The top line — total sales before any costs or taxes are subtracted. A measure of how much business the company is doing.
Net Income
The bottom line — profit left after subtracting all expenses, interest, and taxes from revenue. Reflects accounting profitability, but includes non-cash items like depreciation, so it isn't the same as cash earned.
Operating Cash Flow
The real cash generated by the day-to-day business — selling products, paying suppliers, collecting from customers. Calculated from net income by adding back non-cash items and adjusting for timing (unpaid bills, unsold inventory). When OCF consistently lags net income, the reported profit may not be converting to real money.
Period Revenue Net Income Net Margin YoY/QoQ
Key Metrics
API Direct from provider CALC Derived from statements
Industry comparison last run: Jun 14, 2026 4:50pm
P/E Ratio (Price per dollar of earnings)
API
Stock Price / EPS (Diluted)
74.21
Stock Price: $240.30
EPS (Diluted): 0.11
P/B Ratio (Price vs net asset value)
API
Stock Price / Book Value Per Share
4.59
Stock Price: $240.30
Total Equity: $4.61B
Shares: 253,048,000
EV/EBITDA (Total value vs operating profit)
API
Enterprise Value / EBITDA
41.35
Market Cap: $57.67B
Total Debt: $4.13B
Cash: $3.68B
EBITDA: $494.80M
Enterprise Value (Takeover price (cap + debt - cash))
API
Market Cap + Total Debt - Cash
$22.5B
Market Cap: $57.67B
Total Debt: $4.13B
Cash: $3.68B
Gross Margin (Revenue left after direct costs)
API
Gross Profit / Revenue
68.6%
Gross Profit: $363.60M
Revenue: $529.80M
Operating Margin (Revenue left after all operations)
API
Operating Income / Revenue
-112.5%
Operating Income: -$596.20M
Revenue: $529.80M
Net Margin (Revenue left as actual profit)
API
Net Income / Revenue
19.2%
Net Income: $101.70M
Revenue: $529.80M
ROE (Profit from shareholder equity)
API
Net Income / Total Equity
16.4%
Net Income: $101.70M
Total Equity: $4.61B
ROIC (Profit from all invested capital)
API
NOPAT / Invested Capital
-2.9%
Operating Income: -$596.20M
Tax Rate: 12.1%
Equity: $4.61B
Total Debt: $4.13B
Cash: $3.68B
Current Ratio (Can it pay short-term bills)
API
Current Assets / Current Liabilities
3.08
Current Assets: $4.71B
Current Liabilities: $1.53B
Debt/Equity (Leverage — debt vs equity)
CALC
Total Debt / Total Equity
0.89
Short-Term Debt: $24.50M
Long-Term Debt: $4.10B
Total Debt: $4.13B
Total Equity: $4.61B
Rev/Share (Top-line per share)
CALC
Revenue / Shares Outstanding
$2.09
Revenue: $529.80M
Shares: 253,048,000
Book Value/Share (Net assets per share)
CALC
(Total Assets - Total Liabilities) / Shares
$18.23
Total Equity: $4.61B
Shares: 253,048,000
FCF/Share (Real cash generated per share)
CALC
(Operating Cash Flow + CapEx) / Shares
$-14.55
Operating CF: $384.80M
CapEx: -$4.07B
Shares: 253,048,000
CapEx is negative (outflow) — added to OCF to get FCF
Div Yield (Annual income from holding)
API
Last Annual Dividend / Stock Price
0.0%
Last Dividend: N/A
Stock Price: $240.30
Payout Ratio (Earnings paid out as dividends)
Dividends Paid / Net Income
—
Dividends Paid: N/A
Net Income: $101.70M
Dividends paid not available in cash flow statement
Industry Benchmarks
Last run: Jun 14, 2026 4:50pm
Compares NBIS against LLM-researched typical ranges for its industry. One research call per industry, cached indefinitely — every stock in the same industry reuses the same baseline.
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · three lenses
Three separate reads — Company Quality (is it a great business?), Valuation (is it mispriced?), and General Sentiment (how macro + narrative are pushing it), kept deliberately apart · 2026-06-14 16:56:46
Delvantic - Cairn AI
Quality-mixed, price-rich — wait for sub-$170 7/10
Real AI-infra ramp, but at $232 you're paying full price for a business that still needs to raise capital — wait for the dip, don't chase.
The cruxWhether the inevitable capital raise happens from a position of strength (higher stock, friendly terms) or weakness (a drawdown that forces dilutive financing) — that single event resolves both the quality (-42) and value (-76) concerns.
Forensic checks Derived mechanically from NBIS's filed financials — not from the AI lenses
Liquidity & RunwayCritical Runway
DilutionShare Count Shrinking
Earnings QualityHigh Earnings Quality
The three lensesswitch a tab for its full read — score + evidence
Company Quality
-42
Mixed
edge √Σ 102 · risk √Σ 143 · conf 5/10

Nebius is a post-Yandex-divestiture entity that has pivoted into AI cloud/infrastructure, and the top-line trajectory is real and violent: revenue went from $20.9M (2023) to $117.5M (2024) to $529.8M (2025), with gross margin inflecting from negative to 68.6%. That GM% is genuinely cloud-software-grade and suggests pricing power on GPU capacity. However, operating margin is still -112.5% and the company burned $3.68B of free cash flow in 2025 building out infrastructure — equal to 100% of its liquid cash. Net income of $101.7M is almost certainly flattered by investment gains/mark-to-market on its stakes (Toloka, ClickHouse, Avride), not core operations — the OCF/NI of 1.43x and -7.6% accruals look clean only because the loss is buried in capex.

The capital structure tells the story: net cash is already negative (-$449.6M) despite $3.68B of liquidity, and at the current burn rate runway is roughly 4 quarters before another capital raise. Diluted share count has actually fallen from 362M to 253M (-8.6% CAGR), but that reflects the post-Yandex restructuring, not ongoing capital discipline — SBC at 15.7% of revenue is high, and buybacks only offset 20% of it. Insider tape is uniformly one-directional: 22 sells, zero buys, $131M sold including a $101.6M Korolenko exercise-and-sell. Beneish M at 1.35 is a flag worth noting given how lumpy and reclassified the recent income statements are.

As a business: the gross-margin breakthrough and revenue scaling are legitimately impressive, and Altman Z of 4.83 says the balance sheet isn't broken yet. But this is an unproven, cash-incinerating capex story dependent on continuous external financing, with insiders monetizing aggressively into the ramp. Quality verdict: mixed — promising operating economics, fragile financial structure.

Strengths 3
m70
Revenue inflection is real and steep
Revenue scaled $20.9M → $117.5M → $529.8M across 2023-2025 (~4.5x in the last year alone), evidence of genuine AI-infrastructure demand capture.
m65
Gross margin breakout to 68.6%
GM% moved from -52.6% (2023) to 37.5% (2024) to 68.6% (2025) — a software/cloud-grade unit economic outcome that suggests the GPU-cloud product has real pricing power.
m35
Earnings quality screens clean on surface
OCF/NI 1.43x, accruals -7.6% of assets, Altman Z 4.83 — no obvious accrual-stuffing of reported $101.7M net income.
Concerns 6
m85
Cash burn equals entire cash balance
FCF of -$3.68B against $3.68B liquid cash and negative net cash (-$449.6M) implies ~4 quarters of runway. The business cannot self-fund its build-out and is structurally dependent on capital markets.
m70
Operating margin still -112.5%
Despite 68.6% GM, operating margin is deeply negative — the cost base (SBC, R&D, depreciation on the GPU fleet) is far larger than revenue. Reported net income of $101.7M almost certainly comes from non-operating gains on portfolio stakes, not the core business.
m60
Insider tape is one-way selling
22 sales totaling $131M with zero buys over the last 12 months, including a $101.6M Korolenko exercise-and-sell. No insider is accumulating during a supposedly transformational ramp.
m45
SBC at 15.7% of revenue is a real cost
Buybacks recover only 20.3% of SBC; the share-count decline reflects the post-Yandex restructuring rather than ongoing capital discipline. Per-share dilution will resume as the buyback effect lapses.
m40
Beneish M-score flagged at 1.35
Above the -1.78 threshold; given the messy post-spin financials, large non-operating gains, and lumpy revenue reclassifications, this deserves scrutiny rather than dismissal.
m35
Short and discontinuous operating history
The 2021 figure of $4.76B revenue is the pre-divestiture Yandex business — the current entity has only ~2 years of comparable history, limiting any durability claim.
I'm genuinely torn on this one as a business. The revenue trajectory and gross-margin inflection to 68.6% are not fake — something real is being built and customers are paying for GPU capacity at attractive unit economics. But every quality lens beyond that gets uncomfortable: -$3.68B FCF, four quarters of runway, a reported profit that's almost certainly non-operating in nature, and insiders selling $131M with not a single open-market buy. This isn't a great company yet — it's a high-variance capex bet wearing a software-margin disguise, and whether it becomes a great company depends entirely on continued access to capital markets and execution on a GPU build-out that hasn't yet shown it can self-fund. I'd call it Mixed, leaning fragile on financial structure but with legitimate optionality on operating economics.
Verify before trusting this (7)
  • Decomposition of 2025 net income: how much is operating vs. mark-to-market gains on Toloka/ClickHouse/Avride stakes
  • Customer concentration in AI infrastructure revenue — is the $530M dominated by 1-2 hyperscaler-adjacent contracts?
  • Capex commitments and signed GPU/data-center contracts for 2026 vs. financing already secured
  • Terms of any convertible notes or preferred instruments outstanding — true cost of net debt position
  • Real GM% ex-depreciation on the GPU fleet — accounting choice on useful life materially affects the 68.6%
  • Whether the Korolenko 10b5-1 plan and other insider sales are programmatic or discretionary
  • Operating cash flow excluding working capital and non-operating gain reversals — is core OCF still negative?
Valuation / Mispricing
-76
Rich
edge √Σ 43 · risk √Σ 119 · conf 7/10
Price $232 vs a skeptical deserved range roughly $150–190 given $3.7B FCF burn and dilution risk — stock looks ~20–30% rich, not catastrophically so. attractive below $165.00

NBIS trades at $232.36 for a ~$55.8B equity value against a business currently burning $3.68B of free cash flow with $3.68B of cash — i.e., roughly four quarters of runway before more capital is required. The e2e synthesis itself flags 'High Conviction Required,' which I read as: no method confidently anchors a fair value here because the company is pre-economics. A neutral-cloud AI-infra winner thesis can support a large number, but the market is already paying for that outcome; the deserved value on skeptical, quality-adjusted numbers is materially below spot.

What's priced in at ~$56B: continued hypergrowth, gross margins holding/expanding from 68.6%, the loss-making side bets (Toloka, TripleTen, Avride) eventually not mattering, and a successful capital raise (dilution) on favorable terms to fund the GPU build-out without breaking the equity story. That is a stacked set of assumptions. Earnings quality on the reported profit is suspect (likely non-operating), insiders are selling, and the business model still needs to prove it can earn returns on capital above the cost of the GPUs it keeps buying. None of that screams 'cheap' — it screams 'fairly-to-richly valued on a great narrative.'

Quality is mixed (-42); a genuinely great business raises deserved value, but this one hasn't earned the right to a premium-to-narrative multiple yet. I want a real discount to the story before underwriting it.

Cheap signals 2
m35
Gross margin inflection to 68.6% is real
Genuine unit-economics evidence on the GPU rental core — supports a higher deserved value than a pure commodity-rental framing would imply, and partially offsets the burn concern.
m25
Revenue ramp is not fake
Customers are paying for capacity; the top line trajectory gives the equity a real call-option value even if near-term FCF stays deeply negative.
Rich / priced-in 4
m70
Priced for the platform-monopoly outcome
$55.8B market cap already assumes NBIS becomes the neutral AI-infra alternative to hyperscalers. That's the bull case in the price, not optionality you're getting for free.
m65
$3.68B FCF burn vs $3.68B cash = dilution baked in
Four quarters of runway means an equity or convert raise is a near-certainty. Current holders are paying today's price for a share count that is going up.
m55
e2e synthesis itself says 'High Conviction Required'
When the multi-method composite refuses to commit to a fair value, that's a signal the price is being held up by narrative, not anchored by cash flows or comps.
m45
Loss-making side bets get no credit but consume capital
Toloka/TripleTen/Avride drag on consolidated economics; in a sum-of-parts they likely carry zero-to-negative value, yet management capital and attention go there.
I think the price is full, not crazy. At $232 you're paying for the neutral-AI-cloud winner outcome and underwriting a dilutive raise on top of it, with a fair-value composite that won't even commit to a number. The business has real signal — 68.6% gross margin and a credible revenue ramp — but $3.7B FCF burn against $3.7B cash is not a setup where I pay up. I'd want this ~25–30% lower, call it sub-$170, before the gap between price and deserved value opens up enough to matter. Today: Rich, but not a short — just not a buy here.
Verify before trusting this (5)
  • Forward capex guidance and contracted backlog/RPO — needed to size the next raise
  • Cash burn trajectory and any disclosed financing plans (equity, convert, debt against GPUs)
  • Segment-level economics: GPU-cloud standalone margins vs consolidated, to strip out Toloka/TripleTen/Avride drag
  • Customer concentration disclosures — is revenue from a few large AI labs or genuinely diversified?
  • Quality of the reported profit: how much is operating vs gains on the Yandex-related stakes/divestitures
General Sentiment
+53
Tailwind
tail √Σ 115 · head √Σ 62 · conf 7/10

NBIS is riding a strong platform-monopoly narrative as the non-hyperscaler AI infrastructure play, and the tape is letting that story breathe. The market regime is neutral (VIX 17, S&P near highs), so high-beta (1.43) story stocks aren't being punished, and that matters here because NBIS has no earnings shield - it lives or dies on narrative oxygen. The bull thesis (GPU scarcity, neutral alternative to AWS/Azure/GCP, sovereign AI demand) is the active, intense story being priced, and recent momentum (price at $279 vs 12m back triple-digits lower) confirms flows are chasing it. The key divergence is screaming bullish-sentiment: price $279.72 vs analyst consensus target $196 - the tape is roughly 43% ABOVE where 8 sell-side analysts (7 Buy / 1 Hold) think it should trade. That gap means the narrative is leading analysts, not the other way around, and the one revision this month nudged targets up to $255 - analysts are chasing, not leading. That is classic late-cycle narrative tailwind. Risks to the read: narrative durability is only 'moderate' and cult coefficient only 'medium,' so this is not a Tesla/Palantir-grade faith trade - a single crack in the AI capex story or a hyperscaler price-cut headline could snap the premium fast. Net: tailwind now, but fragile.

Tailwinds 4
m78
AI infrastructure narrative in full flight
Picks-and-shovels AI story with strong intensity is the dominant force lifting NBIS; as a pure-play non-hyperscaler GPU/AI infra name it gets maximum exposure to the cohort bid.
m60
Analyst targets chasing price
Price is ~43% above $196 consensus target and this month's revision moved up to $255 - sell-side is being dragged higher by the tape, a hallmark of momentum/narrative tailwind.
m45
Buy-skewed consensus with no sells
7 Buy / 1 Hold / 0 Sell gives the story air cover; no bearish analyst voice to anchor a re-rate lower.
m40
Neutral tape lets high-beta story names breathe
VIX 17, market near highs - in this regime beta-1.43 narrative stocks aren't being de-risked; if regime were risk-off this name would be hit disproportionately hard.
Headwinds 3
m42
Narrative durability only moderate
Archetype rated moderate-durability / medium-cult means the story can crack on a single bad AI-capex datapoint or hyperscaler pricing move; the premium is not faith-locked like top-tier cult names.
m35
Macro: higher rates pressure long-duration story stocks
10y at 4.48% and stretched market PE are a slow-burn drag on pre-profit, long-duration AI infra names; not acute now but caps the upside multiple.
m30
Price stretched vs targets invites profit-taking
Trading 43% above consensus target is itself a sentiment risk - any wobble triggers 'too far too fast' selling from momentum holders.
Net tailwind, lean moderately positive. The AI picks-and-shovels narrative is doing real work here and the neutral tape is not fighting it - analysts are chasing price rather than capping it, which is textbook narrative-momentum tailwind. But I'd flag this as a fragile tailwind, not a durable one: cult coefficient is only medium, the stock is 43% above consensus targets, and a single crack in AI capex sentiment would hit a beta-1.43 story name hard. Right now the wind is at its back; I'd respect the trend but not confuse it with conviction.
Verify before trusting this (5)
  • Whether AI-infra narrative cracks via hyperscaler capex cut or GPU price war headline
  • Pace and direction of analyst target revisions - do they close the gap to price or stall
  • VIX move above 22 or risk-off rotation that would hit beta-1.43 names hardest
  • Any sovereign/enterprise AI contract wins or losses that validate or undercut the non-hyperscaler thesis
  • Insider selling or secondary offering that could break momentum
The market-wide tape + this name's exposure to it (beta / sector / narrative durability). Context on the non-fundamental pressure — not a call on the business or the price. processId: detail-general-sentiment
Please log in to view trade setups
The Augustus trade-setup read is a members feature.
Log in
Three lenses kept deliberately separate — Company Quality (price-agnostic), Valuation (price-conditional), and General Sentiment (non-fundamental macro/narrative pressure). The scores are not blended. Filing-level items (convertibles, lock-ups, customer concentration) are v2 — see each lens's "verify."
Deep Analysis
Last run: Jun 14, 2026 4:54:20 pm

Pre-flight intelligence scans the company first, then routes to the right analytical methods.

0 Company Classification — What type of company is this?
1 Industry Landscape — Where is the industry headed?
2 Company Momentum — Where is this company trending?
3 Forward Projection — 1Y & 2Y projected metrics (requires Layer 1 + 2)
4a DCF Valuation — Present value of future cash flows
Not applicable for Narrative Platform companies
4b Earnings Power Value — Floor value — worth with zero growth
Not applicable for Narrative Platform companies
4c Anchored PE — Industry PE adjusted for growth differential
Not applicable for Narrative Platform companies
4d Reverse DCF — What growth is the market pricing in?
Average FCF is negative
4e Revenue-Based DCF — For growth/narrative companies (skip if mature earner)
4f Anchored P/S — Price-to-Sales peer comparison (skip if mature earner)
4g Scenario Analysis — Bull / Base / Bear (skip if mature earner)
4h Dividend Discount Model — For dividend/income stocks only
Not applicable for Narrative Platform companies
4i Book Value Analysis — For deep value / turnaround stocks only
Not applicable for Narrative Platform companies
4j Insider Activity — Are insiders buying or selling?
4f Cash Flow Quality — How trustworthy is the FCF?
4g Debt Maturity Risk — Can it handle its debt?
4h Macro Environment — Rates, market valuation, volatility
4i Sector Intelligence — How does this company compare within its sector?
4j Revenue Confidence — How reliable is the growth projection?
4k Sensitivity Analysis — How fragile is the fair value estimate?
Run dcf-valuation first
4l Sector Demand Cycle — Is the sector in a boom, steady state, or contraction?
5 AI Investigation — Adaptive research engine (Claude)
5b Thesis Evaluation — What does the market believe? (narrative/platform stocks only)
6 Valuation Synthesis — Weighted verdict from all methods (requires Layer 4)
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Jun 23, 2026 4:42pm (3d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue $4.8B $13.5M $20.9M $117.5M $529.8M
Cost of Revenue $2.3B $28.4M $31.9M $73.4M $166.2M
Gross Profit $2.4B -$14.9M -$11.0M $44.1M $363.6M
Operating Expenses $2.6B $143.1M $316.5M $484.8M $959.8M
Operating Income -$177.4M -$158.0M -$327.5M -$440.7M -$596.2M
Net Income -$196.0M $745.6M $241.3M -$641.4M $101.7M
EBITDA $240.8M -$103.4M -$310.1M -$316.7M $494.8M
EPS $-0.54 $2.03 $0.65 $-2.28 $0.11
EPS (Diluted) — — — — —
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Jun 23, 2026 4:42pm (3d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Cash & Equivalents $1.1B $1.1B $116.1M $2.4B $3.7B
Total Current Assets $2.7B $3.2B $3.5B $2.5B $4.7B
Total Assets $6.9B $8.3B $8.8B $3.5B $12.4B
Current Liabilities $1.5B $2.5B $3.9B $264.0M $1.5B
Long-Term Debt $1.2B $401.1M $558.6M $0 $4.1B
Total Liabilities $3.3B $3.7B $5.5B $294.9M $7.8B
Total Equity $3.5B $4.2B $3.3B $3.3B $4.6B
Retained Earnings $1.8B $2.3B $3.9B $3.2B $3.3B
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Jun 23, 2026 4:42pm (3d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Operating Cash Flow $124.6M $697.0M $829.8M $245.6M $384.8M
Capital Expenditure -$598.4M -$14.6M -$83.4M -$807.7M -$4.1B
Free Cash Flow -$473.7M $682.4M $746.4M -$562.1M -$3.7B
Acquisitions (net) -$110.4M $0 $0 $1.5B $0
Debt Repayment — — — — —
Dividends Paid — — — — —
Stock Buybacks -$93.4M $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Change in Cash -$711.4M $131.8M -$1.0B $1.4B $1.3B
Analyst Estimates (Annual)
Last updated: Jun 27, 2026 8:07am (58m ago)
Metric 2027 2028 2029 2030
Revenue $11.6B
$9.1B – $13.5B
 $21.3B
$16.4B – $28.9B
 $37.0B
$28.4B – $50.2B
 $53.9B
$41.3B – $73.1B
EBITDA -$4.7B
-$5.4B – -$3.7B
 -$8.6B
-$11.7B – -$6.6B
 -$14.9B
-$20.2B – -$11.4B
 -$21.7B
-$29.5B – -$16.7B
Net Income -$337.9M
-$5.7B – $5.5B
 $300.8M
$210.0M – $440.6M
 $602.3M
$420.4M – $882.1M
 $2.7B
$1.9B – $3.9B
EPS — — — —
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Jun 23, 2026 4:42pm (3d ago)
Metric 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue Growth -99.7% +54.8% +462.2% +350.9%
Gross Profit Growth -100.6% +26.2% +500.9% +724.5%
Operating Income Growth +10.9% -107.3% -34.6% -35.3%
Net Income Growth +480.4% -67.6% -365.8% +115.9%
EBITDA Growth -142.9% -199.9% -2.1% +256.2%
Insider Trading (Recent)
Last updated: Jun 27, 2026 8:07am (58m ago)
Type codes PPurchase SSale AAward / grant MOption exercise FIn-kind (tax) CConversion GGift DReturn to issuer
All SEC Form 4 codes
Open market
P Purchase
Open-market or private purchase of shares.
S Sale
Open-market or private sale of shares.
Compensation (Rule 16b-3)
A Award / grant
Grant or award of securities (RSUs, options, etc.) under Rule 16b-3.
D Return to issuer
Securities disposed back to the company under Rule 16b-3.
F In-kind (tax)
Shares withheld or delivered to pay the option-exercise price or tax — not an open-market sale.
I Discretionary
Discretionary transaction under an employee plan — Rule 16b-3(f).
M Option exercise
Exercise or conversion of a derivative (option/RSU) into shares — exempt.
Derivatives
C Conversion
Conversion of a derivative security into the underlying shares.
E Short expiration
Expiration of a short derivative position.
H Long expiration
Expiration or cancellation of a long derivative position with value received.
O OTM exercise
Exercise of an out-of-the-money derivative.
X ITM exercise
Exercise of an in-the-money or at-the-money derivative.
Other exempt
G Gift
Bona fide gift of securities.
L Small acquisition
Small acquisition under Rule 16a-6.
W Inheritance
Acquisition or disposition by will or the laws of descent.
Z Voting trust
Deposit into or withdrawal from a voting trust.
Other
J Other
Other acquisition or disposition (explained in a Form 4 footnote).
K Equity swap
Transaction in an equity swap or similar instrument.
U Tender / buyout
Disposition via tender of shares in a change-of-control transaction.

Compensation-plan codes (A, D, F, M) are routine and rarely directional. Open-market P (buy) and S (sale) carry the most signal.

Date Insider Type Shares Price Value
2026-06-15 Boynton John Wilson IV S-Sale 100.00 $246.17 $24,617
2026-06-15 Boynton John Wilson IV S-Sale 200.00 $251.89 $50,378
2026-06-15 Boynton John Wilson IV S-Sale 200.00 $255.03 $51,006
2026-06-15 Boynton John Wilson IV S-Sale 100.00 $257.54 $25,754
2026-06-15 Boynton John Wilson IV S-Sale 100.00 $262.09 $26,209
2026-06-15 Boynton John Wilson IV S-Sale 200.00 $248.73 $49,746
2026-06-15 Boynton John Wilson IV S-Sale 3,206.00 $250.08 $801,756
2026-06-15 Boynton John Wilson IV S-Sale 200.00 $253.58 $50,716
2026-06-15 Boynton John Wilson IV S-Sale 900.00 $260.76 $234,684
2026-06-15 Boynton John Wilson IV S-Sale 606.00 $259.45 $157,227
2026-06-04 Shtan Danila S-Sale 15,678.00 $238.96 $3.7M
2026-06-02 Boroditsky Marc S-Sale 10,776.00 $276.20 $3.0M
2026-06-02 Alonso Sanchez Maria del Dado S-Sale 1,509.00 $276.20 $416,786
2026-05-20 Tal Boaz S-Sale 2,600.00 $199.00 $517,400
2026-05-20 Tal Boaz S-Sale 2,000.00 $200.00 $400,000
2026-05-20 Tal Boaz S-Sale 500.00 $199.01 $99,505
2026-05-15 Boroditsky Marc S-Sale 4,500.00 $217.55 $978,975
2026-05-13 Korolenko Andrey M-Exempt 500,000.00 $100.00 $50.0M
2026-05-13 Korolenko Andrey M-Exempt 500,000.00 $0.00 $0
2026-05-13 Korolenko Andrey S-Sale 500,000.00 $203.24 $101.6M
Narrative Economics
The story the market is telling about this stock — the intangible X-factor (founder mythology, cult dynamics, TAM-of-imagination) that moves price beyond what cash flows alone explain. After Shiller, Narrative Economics.
No narrative profile yet for NBIS — it's generated by the pipeline (market-narrative step).
Delvantic AI Findings
Independent analyst synthesis · Delvantic - Cairn AI · generated 2026-06-14 16:54:58
Reviews the pipeline's own verdicts
Verdict Overvalued on execution-perfect assumptions — fair value ~$125 vs $232 spot; growth is real but margin durability and inevitable equity raise aren't priced. Wait

The raw trajectory is genuinely extraordinary: quarterly revenue went from $12.1M (Q2'24) to $399M (Q1'26) — a 33x ramp in seven quarters, with the sequential step from $227.7M to $399M (+75% QoQ) being the most important datapoint in the file. That is not a decelerating quarterly trend as the secondary-signals line claims; that's an acceleration. Annual 2025 revenue of $530M with $364M gross profit (68.6% gross margin) is the real tell — this isn't a price-war GPU reseller margin profile, it looks more like a software-inflected infrastructure business or contains favorable bookkeeping around prepaid capacity. The $102M of 2025 net income is almost certainly non-operating (op loss was -$596M); the $621M Q1'26 net income on $399M revenue and the $584M Q2'25 net income are mark-to-market or divestiture gains (residual Yandex stakes, ClickHouse, Toloka etc.), not core earnings. Ignore PE entirely.

The capital structure is where I depart hardest from the bear framing. $3.68B cash, $384M operating cash flow, and -$4.07B capex in 2025 means this is a self-funded (so far) hyper-build, not a debt-funded one — debt line is blank, current ratio 3.08. But run the math forward: if 2026 capex matches 2025, cash runway is ~10-11 months from year-end before they tap equity or debt. The Q1'26 $399M revenue annualizes to $1.6B, and if the sequential growth even halves to 35% QoQ they exit 2026 near $3B run-rate — that's the bull math the market is paying for. At $55.8B market cap, that's ~18x forward run-rate sales, which is rich but not absurd for a 200%+ grower with 69% gross margins. The 105x trailing P/S the synthesis cites is the wrong denominator.

Where I agree with the skeptics: the insider activity is real and ugly — 500K-share M-Exempt-then-sale on May 13 is classic options-funded distribution, and the steady drip through June is not "diversification," it's conviction-revealing. The market-forces "no visible moat" critique is correct in substance — Nebius has no demonstrated switching cost, no proprietary silicon, and competes against Oracle/CoreWeave/Crusoe plus the hyperscalers themselves, all of whom have cheaper capital. The "non-US sovereign alternative" narrative is thin gruel; European AI labs that matter (Mistral, etc.) are not going to single-source from a Dutch-listed ex-Yandex entity for strategic workloads. And the synthesis verdict of "High Conviction Required" is analytically lazy — it's a way of refusing to commit. The market-narrative layer correctly identifies the cult coefficient as only medium and durability as moderate, which is the most honest read in the stack.

The contrarian case nobody in the prior models articulated: the gross margin is suspicious. 68.6% gross margin on GPU rental is 2-3x what CoreWeave or pure compute resellers report. Either (a) Nebius is capitalizing GPU depreciation aggressively into capex rather than COGS, which would mean true gross margin is materially lower once the $4B of capex flows through D&A, or (b) the revenue mix includes high-margin software/data layers (Toloka data labeling, ClickHouse-adjacent) that won't scale with the AI infra story. Either resolution hurts the bull case. Net: I dissent from the synthesis's "High Conviction Required" hedge and from the pre-flight's implicit endorsement of the $5-10B revenue trajectory at face value. The growth is real, the cash position buys ~12 months, but the valuation assumes both sustained 50%+ growth AND eventual hyperscaler-level margins on infrastructure, and one of those two has to break. Fair value on a 2026 exit run-rate of $2.5B at 12x sales (a fair multiple for a decelerating 100% grower with question marks on margin sustainability) is roughly $30B, or ~$125/share. Today's $232 embeds the picks-and-shovels-monopoly outcome with little discount for the dilution that's coming when capex outruns OCF in mid-2026.

GPT Critique
Second-opinion review · gpt-4o · generated 2026-06-14 16:55:06
Reviews the Opus findings above
Verdict I agree with Opus that Nebius is overvalued at $232, but I see fair value closer to $150, considering the potential for strategic partnerships and geographic appeal, which Opus may have underestimated.

The raw data on Nebius Group N.V. presents a company undergoing a rapid transformation with a dramatic revenue growth trajectory. The numbers are indeed striking: a 33x increase in quarterly revenue from $12.1 million in Q2 2024 to $399 million in Q1 2026. This growth is paired with a notable quarterly leap from $227.7 million to $399 million, indicating an acceleration rather than deceleration, which contradicts the secondary-signals claim of a decelerating trend. However, the net income figures tell a complex story with substantial fluctuations, and the massive net income in some quarters likely reflects non-core earnings, such as mark-to-market or divestiture gains, rather than sustainable profitability from operations. The company's cash and operating cash flow are substantial, but the immense capital expenditure of $4.07 billion in 2025 raises questions about future funding needs.

I agree with Opus's assessment that the company's growth is remarkable, but I diverge on some key points. Opus suggests that the valuation at $232 per share is overvalued, pegging fair value at around $125. They argue that the insider selling activity indicates a lack of confidence, which aligns with my own skepticism. However, I believe Opus underestimates the potential for Nebius to leverage its current momentum and cash position. While I concur that insider selling is concerning, it could also be seen as executives taking advantage of high market valuations, rather than a direct signal of underlying business weakness.

Opus's narrative about the gross margin being artificially inflated is persuasive. A gross margin of 68.6% for a company in the GPU rental business seems unusually high, suggesting potential aggressive accounting practices or a mix of high-margin revenue sources that may not align with the core AI infrastructure narrative. This casts doubt on the sustainability of such margins if Nebius is to scale further in the AI infrastructure space, where competition from hyperscalers is fierce.

A careful skeptic might argue that both analyses overemphasize the potential risks without fully appreciating the strategic positioning Nebius has achieved. The growth trajectory, while dependent on continued capital investment, might attract strategic partnerships or acquisitions that could mitigate the need for equity or debt raises. Furthermore, the current geopolitical climate might enhance Nebius's appeal as a non-US infrastructure alternative, potentially opening markets that are not yet fully appreciated.

Community AI Feedback
No community reviews yet for NBIS. Be the first — hit How to Contribute, have any AI review this page, and paste its take back here.
My Notes personal — only you see this
Data via Financial Modeling Prep · Cached for performance · fmp
v1.1.352 · d1100787 · 2026-06-26 11:39:30