Calls
Source: S&P Capital IQ transcripts via Xpressfeed · latest indexed call 2026-05-07 · generated 2026-07-18.
Latest call digest
EPAM Systems, Inc., Q1 2026 Earnings Call, May 07, 2026 · 2026-05-07T12:00:00
Q1 2026 call — May 07, 2026. EPAM reported Q1 revenue of $1.4 billion, up 7.6% year-over-year (3.7% organic constant currency), at the high end of its outlook. Pure AI-native revenues topped $125 million, up nearly 20% sequentially and a fifth straight quarter of double-digit sequential growth, and management reaffirmed its $600 million AI-native target for 2026. The company also announced a multiyear applied-AI partnership with Anthropic.
The prepared remarks led with momentum — AI-native traction, a growing large-deal pipeline, and gross-margin improvement in the quarter. The consequential news, however, was a cut to the full-year 2026 revenue-growth outlook to 4%–6.5% (from 4.5%–7.5% a quarter earlier), attributed to higher energy prices, Middle East uncertainty, North America underperformance, and a subset of clients delaying decisions. Q2 guidance implies roughly 4% year-over-year growth at the midpoint.
The Q&A concentrated on second-half visibility. Management leaned on a pipeline of close to 10 outsized, non-T&M vendor-consolidation deals to support a stronger back half, but said only a small, risk-adjusted subset is embedded in guidance and that the midpoint does not depend on winning them. Analysts pressed on what the low versus high end implies, on margin trajectory, and on AI tokenomics — where clients currently bear token costs and the commercial model is still evolving. On pricing, management said it is not seeing rate compression.
Participant coverage from the latest call.
| Group | Participants | Count |
|---|---|---|
| Management | Operator; Mike Rowshandel — Head of Investor Relations, EPAM Systems, Inc.; Balazs Fejes — President, CEO & Director, EPAM Systems, Inc.; Jason Peterson — Senior VP, CFO & Treasurer, EPAM Systems, Inc. | 4 |
| Analysts | Bryan Bergin — MD & Analyst, TD Cowen, Research Division; Margaret Nolan — Partner & Research Analyst of Technology, Media, and Communications, William Blair & Company L.L.C., Research Division; Jason Kupferberg — Managing Director & Senior Equity Analyst, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Research Division; James Friedman — Senior Analyst, Susquehanna Financial Group, LLLP, Research Division; David Grossman — Managing Director, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Research Division; Yu Lee — MD of Equity Research & Senior Equity Analyst, Guggenheim Securities, LLC, Research Division; James Schneider — Senior Research Analyst, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division; Bryan Keane — Research Analyst, Citigroup Inc., Research Division; Arvind Ramnani — Managing Director, Truist Securities, Inc., Research Division; James Faucette — MD & Equity Analyst, Morgan Stanley, Research Division | 10 |
Curated latest-call exchanges; one row per analyst topic.
| Analyst | Firm | Topic | What changed in Q&A |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bryan Bergin | TD Cowen, Research Division | Lowered 2026 guide and second-half confidence | Asked whether the cut reflects a few slow large engagements or a broader portfolio dynamic; management pointed to a handful of clients delaying decisions and said it is not assuming the geopolitical backdrop improves. |
| David Grossman | Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Research Division | Framing the low, mid and high end of the range | Pressed on whether the midpoint holds if large deals keep slipping; management said the midpoint relies on steady, typical execution rather than the outsized deals, which mainly drive the high end. |
| Jason Kupferberg | Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Research Division | Nature and count of large vendor-consolidation deals | Management sized the pipeline at close to 10 outsized, non-T&M opportunities and said only a small, risk-adjusted subset is assumed in the back-half guide. |
| Margaret Nolan | William Blair & Company L.L.C., Research Division | Whether client weakness could broaden, and the margin bridge | Management said the low end of the range would reflect broadening delays; travel and consumer are already soft while Financial Services and Hi-Tech remain strong. |
| Bryan Keane | Citigroup Inc., Research Division | Contract pricing, tokenomics and Anthropic revenue model | Management said clients currently bear token costs, the commercial model is still being worked through, and it is not seeing rate compression — with some rate increases in Q1. |
| Arvind Ramnani | Truist Securities, Inc., Research Division | Confidence that pipeline converts on schedule | Questioned why prospective-deal conversion is dependable when existing-client visibility fell short; management cited Middle East uncertainty and said it counts on only a modest share converting. |
Theme tracker
Themes are curator-classified across supplied calls.
| Theme | Status | Quarters mentioned | Read-through |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI-native revenue as the primary growth narrative | emerged | Q4 2024, Q1 2025, Q2 2025, Q3 2025, Q4 2025, Q1 2026 | A disclosed AI-native revenue metric first appeared in late 2024 and has become the company's lead growth story, now exceeding $125 million per quarter with a $600 million full-year 2026 target. |
| Macro-driven delays in client decision-making | persisted | Q1 2025, Q2 2025, Q4 2025, Q1 2026 | Caution around discretionary spend and delayed decisions recurs across the window; in Q1 2026 it drove a cut to the full-year outlook, with North America and travel/consumer called out. |
| NEORIS acquisition and its large Mexico client | persisted | Q3 2024, Q4 2024, Q1 2025, Q3 2025, Q4 2025, Q1 2026 | First raised with the acquisition in Q3 2024, the lead NEORIS client has been a recurring topic; by Q1 2026 management describes it as stabilized with only modest further decline expected. |
| Ukraine delivery continuity as a standing guidance assumption | persisted | Q2 2023, Q3 2023, Q4 2023, Q4 2024, Q4 2025, Q1 2026 | Guidance continues to assume Ukraine delivery centers operate at productivity levels similar to the prior year; the assumption is restated each call even as prominence has faded. |
| New AI commercial models — tokenomics and vendor consolidation | emerged | Q4 2025, Q1 2026 | Non-T&M large deals, AI-enabled vendor consolidation and token economics enter the discussion as AI programs scale into deployment, a genuinely new commercial construct for the services model. |
| Demand shortfall and recovery-timing / stabilization | dropped | Q2 2023, Q3 2023, Q4 2023 | The 2023 narrative centered on a demand shortfall, cost-optimization pressure and when growth would stabilize; that framing faded once organic growth resumed and AI-native became the focus. |
Guidance ledger
Quotes, calls, and speakers are source-verified; outcomes are curator-classified.
| Verbatim guidance | Call | Speaker | Curator outcome | Outcome note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| “Revenue growth will be in the range of 10% to 14%, with an inorganic contribution of approximately 10% for 2025.” | EPAM Systems, Inc., Q4 2024 Earnings Call, Feb 20, 2025 · 2025-02-20T13:00:00 | Jason Peterson | kept | Full-year 2025 revenue grew 15.4% on a reported basis; the guide was raised to 13%-15% by Q2 2025 and the year finished above the initial range. |
| “it's to exit the year at, let's say, 77% or maybe a little above” | EPAM Systems, Inc., Q2 2025 Earnings Call, Aug 07, 2025 · 2025-08-07T12:00:00 | Jason Peterson | missed | Q4 2025 utilization was 75.4%, below the ~77% exit-rate target set for the year. |
| “Revenue growth will be in the range of 4.5% to 7.5%.” | EPAM Systems, Inc., Q4 2025 Earnings Call, Feb 19, 2026 · 2026-02-19T13:00:00 | Jason Peterson | pending | Initial 2026 outlook; lowered to 4%-6.5% one quarter later on macro, energy-price and Middle East uncertainty. |
| “expect to scale these revenues in excess of $600 million in 2026” | EPAM Systems, Inc., Q4 2025 Earnings Call, Feb 19, 2026 · 2026-02-19T13:00:00 | Balazs Fejes | pending | Reaffirmed in Q1 2026, with AI-native revenue above $125 million in Q1 and management citing a strong line of sight to the target. |
| “Revenue growth will now be in the range of 4% to 6.5%.” | EPAM Systems, Inc., Q1 2026 Earnings Call, May 07, 2026 · 2026-05-07T12:00:00 | Jason Peterson | pending | Current full-year 2026 outlook, weighted toward a second-half ramp in large, risk-adjusted deals. |
Q&A pressure map
Question counts and firms are curator tallies; analyst coverage shown above.
| Topic | Questions | Firms | Pressure / response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Second-half visibility and the lowered 2026 guide | 6 | TD Cowen, Research Division, William Blair & Company L.L.C., Research Division, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Research Division, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Research Division, Truist Securities, Inc., Research Division | The most pressed topic on the call. Management repeatedly tied the back half to large-deal wins and a stable macro; one question on why existing-client visibility fell short was answered largely by pointing to the Middle East rather than the internal forecasting gap. |
| Outsized non-T&M vendor-consolidation deals | 4 | Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Research Division, Susquehanna Financial Group, LLLP, Research Division, Guggenheim Securities, LLC, Research Division, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division | Analysts probed the count, deal profile, and EPAM's ability to close and execute at that scale; management said the pipeline is risk-adjusted and only partly reflected in guidance. |
| Margin and profitability trajectory | 3 | William Blair & Company L.L.C., Research Division, Susquehanna Financial Group, LLLP, Research Division, Morgan Stanley, Research Division | Questions on bridging Q1's 14.3% non-GAAP operating margin to the full-year 15%-16% target and on margins as large deals ramp; management pointed to seasonality, cost optimization and year-over-year gross-margin gains. |
| AI tokenomics and pricing / commercial models | 2 | Citigroup Inc., Research Division, Morgan Stanley, Research Division | Analysts asked how token costs and new commercial models affect revenue recognition and margins; management said clients currently bear token costs and the model is still evolving. |
Language shifts
Only language evidence verified against the referenced component is shown.
| Observation | Verbatim evidence | Call ID | Component |
|---|---|---|---|
| A more cautious macro framing than the prior quarter, flagged explicitly by management. | “there's a more macro uncertainty today compared to 90 days ago” | 1993788992 | 2 |
| First time the Middle East is named as a specific driver of client decision delays. | “we are seeing the ongoing uncertainty in the Middle East begin to have an impact on client decision-making” | 1993788992 | 3 |
| New commercial vocabulary — 'tokenomics' enters the lexicon as AI programs scale into deployment. | “tokenomics and implication for our engagement is becoming more significant” | 1993788992 | 2 |
| Retained pricing confidence as a counterpoint to the softer demand tone. | “we are actually not seeing what we call rate compression at this point of time” | 1993788992 | 46 |
The call history frames Q1 2026 as a step-down in near-term visibility layered onto a genuine AI-native inflection: management cut the full-year outlook on macro and delayed decisions while pointing to an unusually large, still-unproven pipeline of non-T&M deals to carry the second half. The investment debate now turns on whether that pipeline converts on schedule, given a track record of guidance being raised through 2025 but cut early in 2026.