Calls

Source: S&P Capital IQ transcripts via Xpressfeed · latest indexed call 2026-05-07 · generated 2026-07-22.

Latest call digest

EPAM Systems, Inc., Q1 2026 Earnings Call, May 07, 2026 · 2026-05-07T12:00:00

Q1 2026 call — May 7, 2026. Prepared remarks led with strength: revenue at the high end of the outlook (up 7.6% year-over-year), the first year-over-year gross-margin improvement in some time, AI-native revenue above $125 million (up ~20% sequentially, a fifth straight quarter of double-digit sequential growth), and a new multiyear applied-AI partnership with Anthropic. Management reiterated the >$600 million AI-native target for 2026.

The Q&A reality was more guarded. Alongside the upbeat AI narrative, Jason Peterson lowered the full-year revenue growth outlook to 4%–6.5% (from 4.5%–7.5%), citing Middle East uncertainty, higher energy prices, and underperformance in North America that has reduced second-half visibility. The stated case for the implied second-half reacceleration rests on roughly ten unusually large, non-T&M vendor-consolidation and transformation deals that management is risk-adjusting heavily and only partially reflecting in the guide. Analysts pressed repeatedly on whether that pipeline can backfill existing-client softness, whether the midpoint holds if the large deals slip, and how tokenomics reshapes pricing and margins. Guidance actually stated: FY revenue growth 4%–6.5% (2.5%–5% organic constant currency), non-GAAP EPS $12.98–$13.28; Q2 revenue $1.4–$1.415 billion (~4% growth at midpoint).

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	Nature of the guide cut and 2H confidence	Asked whether the reduction reflects a handful of slower large engagements or a broader portfolio dynamic, and what underpins the implied second-half sequential step-up. Management: a handful of customers delaying decisions since April/May; no assumed geopolitical improvement.
Margaret Nolan	William Blair	Broadening of client weakness; margin bridge	Pressed whether the full-year range assumes weakness spreads beyond the affected subset. Management tied the low end to broadening delays; flagged travel/consumer softness versus continued Financial Services and Hi-Tech demand.
Jason Kupferberg	Wells Fargo	Back-half sequential shape and large deals in the guide	Sought the base case for Q3/Q4 growth and clarity on the vendor-consolidation deals. Management: ~10 outsized non-T&M opportunities, only a small risk-adjusted subset embedded in guidance.
David Grossman	Stifel	Low/mid/high framing; North America weakness	Asked what drives each end of the range and whether the midpoint holds if large deals keep slipping. Management: midpoint rests on steady execution, not on winning the large deals; North America is where incremental weakness sits and where EMEA-style go-to-market investment is being directed.
Yu Lee	Guggenheim	Ability to close/execute unusually large deals; NEORIS	Questioned whether EPAM has the sales muscle, governance and delivery infrastructure for deals above its historical norm. Management acknowledged this is why the pipeline is risk-adjusted; noted AI-native portfolio runs above corporate-average profitability. NEORIS client described as stabilized.
James Schneider	Goldman Sachs	Large-deal margin profile; capital allocation	Asked whether converting large deals pressures margins and about buyback-versus-M&A priorities. Management expects continued year-over-year gross-margin improvement despite transition costs; buybacks continue with possible renewed M&A focus later in the year.
Bryan Keane	Citi	Contract pricing, tokenomics and Anthropic revenue model	Asked how pricing has shifted and how Anthropic revenue is recognized. Management: clients mostly bear token costs today; commercial models still evolving; notably reported securing rate increases for a small minority of clients rather than rate compression.
Arvind Ramnani	Truist	Confidence in pipeline conversion; AI cannibalization	Pointedly asked why prospective pipeline will convert on time after existing-client softness was under-anticipated. Management leaned on Middle East surprise and a modest required win share. Also acknowledged some budget shift and SDLC automation displacing legacy work.
James Faucette	Morgan Stanley	Tokenomics margin levers; M&A appetite	Asked what levers control margin on token-heavy, longer-duration work. Management described model-blending and multi-sourcing tokens 'akin to a trading desk'; reiterated possible M&A later in the year with a private-versus-public valuation gap.

Theme tracker

Themes are curator-classified across supplied calls.

Theme	Status	Quarters mentioned	Read-through
AI-native / GenAI revenue	persisted	Q2 2023, Q4 2023, Q4 2024, Q2 2025, Q3 2025, Q4 2025, Q1 2026	Began in 2023 as positioning with management cautioning it was not yet material revenue; first quantified around $50M in Q4 2024, above $105M by Q4 2025, and above $125M in Q1 2026, with a reiterated >$600M 2026 target. The clearest sustained growth story in the history.
Macro caution and delayed client decision-making	persisted	Q2 2023, Q4 2023, Q1 2024, Q2 2024, Q4 2025, Q1 2026	Present in nearly every call: acute demand softness through 2023-2024, easing during 2025, then re-emerging late 2025 and into Q1 2026 around larger discretionary programs. A recurring backdrop rather than a one-off.
Middle East / geopolitical uncertainty as a demand factor	emerged	Q4 2025, Q1 2026	Distinct from the long-running Ukraine delivery topic, management newly cited Middle East uncertainty and higher energy prices as reasons some clients are delaying decisions, and made it central to the Q1 2026 guidance cut.
AI-enabled vendor consolidation and outsized deals	emerged	Q4 2025, Q1 2026	Evolved from earlier 'clients returning to quality' commentary into roughly ten multiyear, non-T&M deals larger than EPAM's historical norm. Management presents these as a step-change but keeps them heavily risk-adjusted in guidance.
India mix-shift bill-rate / margin headwind	dropped	Q1 2024, Q2 2024, Q3 2024, Q4 2024	A dominant, repeatedly-pressed pressure point through 2024 (sized around a ~$100M / ~200bps revenue drag). It has effectively disappeared from the narrative by 2025-2026 as attention shifted to AI economics.
Tokenomics and evolving commercial models	emerged	Q4 2025, Q1 2026	A genuinely new construct: management describes clients currently bearing token costs, ongoing experimentation with pricing, and model-blending/multi-sourcing as future margin levers. Still unresolved by management's own account.

Guidance ledger

Quotes, calls, and speakers are source-verified; outcomes are curator-classified.

Verbatim guidance	Call	Speaker	Curator outcome	Outcome note
“For Q1 of 2026, we expect revenue to be in the range of $1.385 billion to $1.4 billion, producing year-over-year growth of 7% at the midpoint of the range.”	EPAM Systems, Inc., Q4 2025 Earnings Call, Feb 19, 2026 · 2026-02-19T13:00:00	Jason Peterson	kept	Q1 2026 revenue came in at $1.4 billion, at the high end of the outlook, up 7.6% year-over-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	Lowered to 4% to 6.5% on the Q1 2026 call, citing Middle East uncertainty, higher energy prices and North America underperformance; the full year is not yet complete.
“we continue to see robust demand for our AI-native services and 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	Q1 2026 AI-native revenue exceeded $125 million, up nearly 20% sequentially; management reiterated the $600 million full-year target and cited a strong line of sight.
“we are committed to running the business at a profitability level of at least 15% for non-GAAP adjusted IFO.”	EPAM Systems, Inc., Q1 2024 Earnings Call, May 09, 2024 · 2024-05-09T12:00:00	Jason Peterson	kept	On the Q4 2024 call management stated full-year 2024 adjusted income from operations of about 16.5%, above the at-least-15% commitment.
“Revenue growth will be in the range of 1% to 4%, on both a reported and constant currency basis.”	EPAM Systems, Inc., Q4 2023 Earnings Call, Feb 15, 2024 · 2024-02-15T13:00:00	Jason Peterson	missed	The initial FY2024 growth target was walked down through the year; by the Q3 2024 call full-year revenue was guided to roughly flat year-over-year.

Q&A pressure map

Question counts and firms are curator tallies; analyst coverage shown above.

Topic	Questions	Firms	Pressure / response
Second-half visibility and credibility of the lowered guide	5	TD Cowen, Wells Fargo, Stifel, Truist	The dominant line of questioning on the Q1 2026 call. Analysts probed what backfills existing-client softness, whether the implied 2H reacceleration is achievable, and whether the midpoint holds if large deals slip. Management leaned on a risk-adjusted pipeline rather than committed backlog, and said the midpoint does not depend on winning the large deals.
AI pricing, tokenomics and cannibalization	4	Citi, Truist, Morgan Stanley	Repeated questions on how token economics reshapes pricing, whether AI displaces legacy revenue, and how margin is controlled on token-heavy work. Management acknowledged some budget shift and SDLC automation while describing model-blending and multi-sourcing as levers.
Outsized vendor-consolidation deals — size, execution and margins	3	Wells Fargo, Guggenheim, Goldman Sachs	Analysts questioned whether EPAM has the sales, governance and delivery capacity for deals above its historical norm and how their margins compare. Management conceded uncertainty on timing and ramp, which is why the pipeline is risk-adjusted.
North America softness and go-to-market investment	2	William Blair, Stifel	Questions focused on whether weakness broadens and why North America is simultaneously the weak spot and the target of new EMEA-style go-to-market investment. Management framed the investment as personnel, process and marketing change, not a demand call.

Language shifts

Only language evidence verified against the referenced component is shown.

Observation	Verbatim evidence	Call ID	Component
The most explicit confidence reversal in the history: management labeled its own prior second-half-2024 recovery assumption a misjudgment, setting the low point of the cycle.	“This view, which we now believe was optimistic”	1877759691	2
After a broadly more upbeat 2025, caution vocabulary returned as management reintroduced decision-making slowness at the start of 2026.	“we are seeing some slowness in decision making at the start of 2026 as clients finalize budgets”	1978782779	3
A new, specific risk vocabulary entered the Q1 2026 call, with the Middle East named as a direct driver of client behavior rather than generic macro caution.	“we are seeing the ongoing uncertainty in the Middle East begin to have an impact on client decision-making”	1993788992	3
Management explicitly stepped down its confidence versus the prior quarter, an unusual direct acknowledgment of reduced visibility.	“there's a more macro uncertainty today compared to 90 days ago”	1993788992	2

The call history frames a company mid-pivot: a genuine, quantified AI-native growth story layered on a traditional book that remains macro-sensitive. The recurring pattern of confident guidance followed by mid-year revisions (2024 most starkly, and again with the Q1 2026 cut) argues for weighting the risk-adjusted second-half pipeline conservatively, while the durability of AI-native sequential growth and returning gross-margin improvement are the clearest positives to track.