TEM — Q4 FY25 Earnings Review (Bear)

Date: 2026-04-01 Quarter: Q4_FY25 (Dec-2025) + FY2025 Full Year Earnings released: 2026-02-24 | Preliminary: 2026-01-11 Market cap: ~$9.8B | P/S TTM: 7.7x | P/S NTM (FY26 $1.59B guide): ~6.2x Atlas baseline: Read and incorporated. I agree with Atlas on organic growth concern and commercial org dysfunction. I diverge on valuation framing — I place more weight on the NRR decline and the EBITDA guidance miss.


Prior Beliefs / Updated Beliefs

First Bear analysis of TEM — no prior established. Using the preliminary Q4 data (Jan 11) plus Atlas's Q3 review as my baseline expectations.

Metric Prior Belief (from prelim + Q3 guidance) Actual (Full Q4 Release) Verdict
Q4 Revenue ~$367M per prelim $367.2M CONFIRMED
Q4 Organic growth ~30% per JPM 33.5% ex-Ambry BEAT — stronger than expected
D&S revenue ~$100M per prelim $100.4M (+25.1% YoY) CONFIRMED — record quarter
Q4 Adj EBITDA ~$20M per Q3 guidance $12.9M MISSED by 35%
FY25 Adj EBITDA "Slightly positive" per Q3 -$7.4M MISSED own guidance
Q4 Gross Margin ~63% (continuation) 64.7% (implied from $237.7M GP) BEAT — best ever
NRR ~130%+ (holding) 126% (down from 140%) MISSED — 14pp decline
TCV ~$1B (growing) >$1.1B (up from $940M) BEAT — 17%+ growth
FY26 Guide ~$1.59B / $65M EBITDA per SA 1.59B65M EBITDA CONFIRMED
Oncology volume Continued acceleration +29% (up from 27%) BEAT
Hereditary volume Continued acceleration +23% (down from 37%) MISSED — sharp deceleration

Delta Assessment:


The Numbers

Quarter Jun-23 Sep-23 Dec-23 Mar-24 Jun-24 Sep-24 Dec-24 Mar-25 Jun-25 Sep-25 Dec-25
Revenue ($M) 132.4 136.1 147.7 145.8 166.0 180.9 200.7 255.7 314.6 334.2 367.2
YoY % +25.4% +32.9% +35.9% +75.4% +89.6% +84.7% +83.0%
QoQ % +2.8% +8.5% -1.3% +13.9% +9.0% +10.9% +27.4% +23.0% +6.2% +9.9%
GM GAAP % 53.3% 45.5% 58.5% 60.8% 60.7% 62.0% 62.8% 64.7%
EBITDA ($M) -37.0 -36.2 -35.1 -43.9 -31.2 -21.8 -7.8 -16.2 -5.6 +1.5 +12.9
EBITDA Margin -27.9% -26.6% -23.8% -30.1% -18.8% -12.1% -3.9% -6.3% -1.8% +0.4% +3.5%
Op Margin GAAP -34.1% -32.9% -36.5% -321%† -29.6% -25.3% -26.9% -19.6% -18.2% -16.7%
Net Loss ($M) -55.8 -53.4 -50.5 -64.7 -552† -75.8 -13.0 -68.0 -42.8 -80.0 -54.2
SBC ($M) 0.0 488† 21.0 32.4 23.0 22.4 34.0 45.3

†IPO-quarter one-time effects.

FY25 Full Year: Revenue $1,271.7M (+83.4%). Diagnostics $955.4M (+111.5%). D&A $316.4M (+30.9%). GP 797.9M(+109.47.4M (vs -104.7MPY).NetLoss245.0M. Cash $759.7M.


Segment Analysis

Segment Q4_FY24 Q1_FY25 Q2_FY25 Q3_FY25 Q4_FY25 QoQ Q4 YoY Q4
Genomics (total) $120.4M $193.8M $241.8M $252.9M $266.9M +5.5% +121.6%
— Hereditary $63.5M $97.3M $102.6M ~$110M* +7.2%
— Oncology $119.0M $133.2M $139.5M ~$148M* +6.1%
Data & Applications $80.2M $61.9M $72.8M $81.3M $100.4M +23.5% +25.1%
Total $200.7M $255.7M $314.6M $334.2M $367.2M +9.9% +83.0%

*Oncology/Hereditary split within Q4 Diagnostics not separately confirmed; estimated from diagnostics total and prior trends.

D&S inflection is real. $100.4M is a genuine step-up from the $61-81M range that persisted through Q1-Q3 FY25. Insights (data licensing) at +69.5% YoY is the strongest sub-segment growth rate in the data history. This partially addresses the concern that the "AI premium" business wasn't growing. But one quarter doesn't make a trend. I need Q1 FY26 to confirm.

Diagnostics is steady but Ambry is fading. Hereditary volume growth decelerated from 37% → 23% in one quarter. The post-acquisition channel integration boost is wearing off. Oncology at +29% is the more durable signal — fourth consecutive quarter of acceleration.


Leading Indicators Assessment

Signal Direction Detail
Oncology volume Bullish 20% → 26% → 27% → 29% — four consecutive quarters of acceleration
Hereditary volume Bearish 23% → 32% → 37% → 23% — sharp reversal after 3Q of acceleration
Insights revenue Bullish +37.6% (Q3) → +69.5% (Q4) — clear acceleration
MRD tests Bullish (early) ~4,700 in Q4, +56% QoQ — new product gaining traction
D&S sequential growth Bullish +23.5% QoQ — first meaningful sequential acceleration
NRR Bearish 140% (Q4 FY24) → 126% (Q4 FY25) — 14pp annual decline
TCV Bullish 940M → >1.1B — 17%+ growth in total contract value
EBITDA trajectory Bullish -43.9M(Q1FY24) → +12.9M (Q4 FY25) — clear inflection
SBC trend Bearish $23.0M → $22.4M → $34.0M → $45.3M — steep ramp in H2 FY25
GP margin Bullish 53.3% → 60.7% → 62.0% → 62.8% → 64.7% — steady expansion

Net assessment: The volume-to-revenue leading indicators are mixed (oncology bullish, hereditary bearish). The data licensing business is showing the acceleration the thesis requires. NRR decline is the most concerning data point — it means existing customer expansion is slowing, which undermines the moat thesis. The EBITDA trajectory is clearly bullish but the miss of own guidance creates a trust deficit.


Management Credibility Assessment

Commitment Made In Result Verdict
FY25 revenue ~$1.24B Q4 FY24 $1.27B BEAT — delivered well above initial guide
FY25 guide raised to $1.265B Q3 FY25 $1.27B BEAT — delivered above final guide
Q4 EBITDA ~$20M Q3 FY25 $12.9M MISSED — by 35%
FY25 EBITDA "slightly positive" Q3 FY25 -$7.4M MISSED — full year still negative
"Both businesses accelerating" Q4 prelim Oncology ✓, Hereditary ✗, D&S ✓ MIXED — hereditary decelerated

In my framework, missing your own guidance is a serious concern. "Companies should never do this." The revenue execution has been excellent — four consecutive raises and beats. But the profitability guidance was the first time management set a specific EBITDA target, and they missed it. The Paige acquisition (~$5M/Q losses) accounts for part of the EBITDA shortfall but management set the $20M Q4 target after announcing Paige. They knew about the drag and still guided too high.

Let me be clear: this isn't a thesis-breaking miss. The trajectory from -104.7MFY24EBITDAto7.4M FY25 EBITDA is dramatic improvement. But the credibility of the $65M FY26 EBITDA guide is now lower than it would be had they hit their FY25 target.


NRR Deep Dive — The Most Important Number

Atlas flagged D&S stagnation and stale NRR data. Now we have updated numbers and the picture is worse than expected.

Why this matters: The data moat thesis — that Tempus's 38M+ de-identified records create a durable competitive advantage — depends on customers finding the data increasingly valuable over time. Declining NRR suggests the opposite: either the data is not delivering incremental value, or competition is providing alternatives, or procurement budgets are tightening across pharma.

I could be wrong. NRR methodology may have changed (Ambry customer base diluting the metric), or large multi-year contracts may create natural NRR cyclicality. But management needs to address this on the Q1 FY26 call. If NRR drops below 120%, the data licensing business becomes a linear grower, not a compounder.


Valuation

Metric Value Assessment
Market cap ~$9.8B
TTM Revenue (FY25) $1.27B
NTM Revenue (FY26 guide) $1.59B
P/S TTM 7.7x
P/S NTM 6.2x
EV (mkt cap + ~$490M net debt) ~$10.3B
EV/NTM Revenue ~6.5x Rich for 25% grower
EV/NTM EBITDA ($65M) ~158x Not meaningful — still early
Revenue-PEG (growth/P/S) 25% / 6.2x = 4.0x Superficially attractive

My take on valuation. The revenue-PEG heuristic says 25% growth at 6.2x P/S is reasonable — growth exceeds the multiple by 4x. But this metric is misleading for TEM because:

  1. Revenue quality is mixed. ~75% of revenue is fee-for-service diagnostics with ~61% gross margins, not high-margin recurring SaaS. Only 25% is the higher-margin data licensing business.
  2. Organic growth is the real number. Reported 83% YoY includes Ambry. Organic was ~30-33%. FY26 guide of 25% is the reality.
  3. FCF is deeply negative. FY25 FCF was heavily negative (Q1-Q3 alone: -$197.6M operating cash outflow). At $760M cash and ongoing losses, the company has runway but not profitability.
  4. Sum-of-parts sanity check:

Is $3.5-4.4B in optionality reasonable? Maybe. But the AI narrative hasn't earned it in revenue yet — AI application revenue was only $12.4M in FY24, and Loop platform (drug discovery) has zero disclosed revenue. I don't invest based on hope.

The market cap question. Is this really a $9.8B company? Revenue run rate is $1.5B, but the company lost $245M in FY25 and has $490M in net debt. Companies at this scale with negative FCF and 25% growth typically trade at 3-5x NTM revenue in normalized markets. TEM's 6.5x EV/NTM is paying for a future that hasn't materialized.


Scuttlebutt Confirmation

Atlas's scuttlebutt findings remain relevant and I agree with the key points:

  1. Data moat is genuine. 38M+ de-identified records, 50%+ of US oncologists connected. Takes a decade to replicate. This is real.
  2. Commercial org remains broken. RepVue 23% quota attainment, Glassdoor 2.9/5. The company that needs to sell its data moat can't retain sales reps. This is structural, not episodic.
  3. CEO insider selling continues. 227 sales, 0 purchases since IPO. $90M+ in 2025. The 10b5-1 cover doesn't change the optics. Combined with Groupon history, this limits institutional confidence.
  4. Spruce Point concerns on TCV quality are now partially addressed. TCV grew to >$1.1B (from $940M), but NRR declined — suggesting the growth is new contracts, not expansion. If $300M+ of TCV is non-binding opt-ins per Spruce Point, that's still 27%+ of total. Not resolved.

Key Risks

  1. Organic growth deceleration in FY26. As Ambry anniversaries out (Q1 FY26 first clean comp), reported growth drops from 83% to ~25%. This is a 58pp headline compression. Even if expected, it will shock momentum investors.
  2. NRR trend. 140% → 126% in one year. If this continues toward 110%, the data licensing business loses its compounder status.
  3. EBITDA credibility gap. Missing first profitability target raises the bar for the $65M FY26 guide. If Paige integration costs exceed estimates or D&S momentum falters, EBITDA guide could be cut.
  4. SBC acceleration. 45.3MinQ4(12.37.4M FY EBITDA, this is the entire "profitability" and then some.
  5. CEO governance. Relentless selling, related-party transactions (Pathos), Groupon track record. Not a thesis-breaker alone but adds discount to fair value.

Key Catalysts (Forward)

  1. Q1 FY26 (first clean organic comp). This is the single most important near-term data point. If organic growth is 25%+ with D&S continuing at $90M+, the thesis strengthens. If organic growth is 20% or below, the multiple compresses.
  2. NRR stabilization. If NRR holds at 126% or ticks up in H1 FY26, the existing customer base is healthy. If it drops below 120%, there's a structural problem.
  3. **EBITDA tracking to 65Mguide. * *QuarterlyEBITDAof 16M+ needed. Q4's $12.9M was below the quarterly run-rate needed. Q1 FY26 EBITDA needs to step up.
  4. Loop platform commercial traction. Any material drug discovery AI deal would validate the valuation premium.
  5. MRD ramp. ~4,700 tests in Q4 (+56% QoQ). If this product scales, it's a new revenue vertical with potentially higher ASPs.

Conclusion

Thesis Status: Forming — Watchlist

TEM is a genuinely differentiated company with a real data moat in precision oncology. The Q4 results had bright spots — D&S reaching 100M, Insightsacceleratingto + 69.5105M to -$7M in one year is impressive.

But the numbers don't fully match the theory yet. The two most important data points from Q4 were both negative: (1) management missed their own EBITDA guidance — first time setting a profitability target and they didn't hit it, and (2) NRR declined 14 percentage points from 140% to 126%, which undermines the data licensing quality narrative. Hereditary volume deceleration from 37% to 23% shows the Ambry boost is fading. SBC is ramping. FCF is deeply negative. And at $9.8B market cap for a company earning negative EBITDA on $1.27B revenue, the stock is priced for a future that requires multiple things to go right simultaneously.

I don't have enough conviction to build a position at these levels. The FY26 organic growth comps (starting Q1) and the next NRR reading will be definitive. If organic growth sustains 25%+, D&S continues its acceleration, and NRR stabilizes, this becomes interesting at a lower multiple. If organic growth decelerates below 25% or NRR drops below 120%, the thesis breaks before it forms.

Action: Watchlist — no position. Revisit after Q1 FY26 earnings.

I could be wrong. The data moat may be more defensible than NRR suggests, and the AI revenue inflection may come faster than I expect. But the numbers have to match the theory, and right now they're getting there but aren't there yet.

Bear