NVDA
Disclosure: As of 2026-02-10, the Runchey Research Model Trading Fund holds a long position in NVDA. View our full Editorial Integrity & Disclosure Policy.
Q4 FY2026 EARNINGS: $68B Revenue (+73%), $62B DC (+22% QoQ), $78B Q1 Guide — All 8 Signals Confirmed
Q4 revenue $68.1B (+73% YoY), Data Center $62.3B (+75% YoY, +22% sequential). Gross margin 75.2% non-GAAP (expanding). Q1 FY2027 guidance $78B. FCF $96.6B full-year. Anthropic $10B investment disclosed but non-marketable equity grew $3.4B to $22.3B — vendor financing now quantifiable at 8.1% of DC revenue. Rubin 6-chip platform samples shipped. Groq licensing ($13B). All 8 signals confirmed at same labels; 4 confidence upgrades. Thesis maintained at price-above-value at $195.92.
Read the full analysis"NVIDIA's FY2026 revenue hit $216B with 75% margins and $97B FCF, but with 91% tied to Data Center and its largest customers building competing ASICs, is the $4.8T valuation pricing permanence into what may be a capex cycle peak?"
NVIDIA Corporation is the dominant designer of AI accelerator chips, commanding an estimated 80%+ share of the AI training and inference compute market. The company grew revenue 65% in FY2026 to $215.9B, driven overwhelmingly by data center AI infrastructure demand from hyperscalers. Q4 FY2026 delivered $68.1B revenue (+73% YoY) with Q1 FY2027 guided at $78B. However, those same customers are actively developing custom ASIC alternatives, with Amazon's Trainium2 already training frontier models and Google's TPU v7 claiming 40-60% lower TCO.
Executive Summary
Cross-lens roll-up assessment
NVIDIA presents a genuinely exceptional business operating at historically unprecedented scale and margins, with real revenue backed by verifiable customer deployments. However, the analysis reveals a consistent theme across all 6 lenses: conditionality. Revenue is conditional on sustained AI capex, the moat is defensible but faces funded competition from its own customers, and the valuation demands continued near-perfection. The narrative gap between 'AI infrastructure is permanent' and the reality of cyclical capex spending represents the most material analytical finding.
NVIDIA's analysis produces a consistent CONDITIONAL theme across lenses, with genuine business strength (CLEAN accounting, DEFENSIBLE moat, demonstrated regulatory resilience) offset by structural dependencies (capex cycle, ASIC competition, valuation stretch). The business is not broken -- it is exceptional -- but its current trajectory requires sustained favorable conditions to justify market pricing. De-escalation triggers: hyperscaler capex grows above +50% YoY for another year, ASIC adoption stalls, or NVIDIA DC gross margins remain above 70% through FY2027. Escalation triggers: hyperscaler capex decelerates below +20% YoY, major hyperscaler shifts >30% of workloads to ASICs, or DOJ files formal complaint.
Key Takeaways
- •ACCOUNTING_INTEGRITY is CLEAN (confidence upgraded MEDIUM→HIGH) -- revenue verified by $96.6B FY2026 FCF (45% margin), conservative guidance beat pattern ($1B-$3.1B beats across FY2026), and $41.1B returned to shareholders. Vendor financing now quantifiable: non-marketable equity grew $3.4B→$22.3B, with $10B Anthropic investment disclosed. At 8.1% of DC revenue, material but not yet artificial demand.
- •REVENUE_DURABILITY is CONDITIONAL (3 lenses agree, confidence upgraded) -- Data Center is ~91% of $216B revenue with top 5 hyperscalers at ~50% of DC revenue. Q4 FY2026 DC revenue $62.3B (+22% QoQ) with $78B Q1 guide confirms near-term trajectory. Structurally dependent on continued AI capex approaching $700B at top 5 CSPs.
- •COMPETITIVE_POSITION is DEFENSIBLE -- multi-layered moat (CUDA 5.9M developers, NVLink $8.2B/quarter +162% YoY, Rubin 6-chip platform, Groq inference acquisition) delivers 75.2% gross margins at $68B quarterly revenue. Two moat layers upgraded (Product Cadence, Full-Stack Integration). Signed ASIC deals remain credible funded competition.
- •REGULATORY_EXPOSURE is ELEVATED (synthesized across lenses) -- China export controls removed ~$50B TAM but revenue doubled regardless. Forward risk from DOJ antitrust subpoenas, SAMR anti-monopoly fine (~$1.7B cap), and congressional pressure. No new regulatory developments in Q4 earnings.
- •NARRATIVE_REALITY_GAP is DIVERGING -- revenue growth is genuine but market narrative overstates permanence and understates capex cyclicality, ASIC competition, and vendor financing (now quantifiable at $17.5B equity investments). At ~$4.8T market cap, EXPECTATIONS_PRICED remains DEMANDING (Bullet Hole rejected proposed STRETCHED upgrade).
Key Tensions
- •Revenue concentration is the central risk reinforced across 3 lenses: 88-90% Data Center dependency means any shift in AI capex trajectory directly impacts NVIDIA's revenue, yet all major customers are currently increasing NVIDIA spend
- •ASIC threat is real but timing is uncertain: Amazon Trainium2 trains frontier models and custom ASIC shipments are projected to surpass GPUs by 2028, yet NVIDIA's financial results show zero competitive impact so far -- the Moat Mapper minority position (DOMINANT) is data-dependent on ASIC deployment metrics that are not publicly available
- •Valuation demands perfection while the business operates in a capex cycle with no historical precedent for sustained spending at current levels -- if revenue growth decelerates, the gap between expectations and reality could be material
Fugazi Filter
Are the numbers trustworthy?
Dual-Axis Risk Classification
Position shows Accounting Integrity × Funding Fragility
No elevated red flags detected. Standard investment analysis practices apply — focus on valuation and business fundamentals.
Key FindingsClick to expand details
Signal AssessmentsClick for full context
| Signal | Scale | Assessment | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
Accounting Integrity | — | CLEAN | 2Corroborated |
Governance Alignment | — | MIXED | 2Corroborated |
Model Debates
Cross-Lens Insights
Where Lenses Agree
- Revenue concentration is the central risk -- 3 lenses independently identify 88-90% Data Center dependency as the key vulnerability
- ASIC threat is real but not imminent -- Moat Mapper and Gravy Gauge agree on the competitive trajectory
- Regulatory surface area is wider than the market appreciates -- 4+ simultaneous enforcement vectors
- Vendor financing is a non-issue -- Fugazi Filter and Gravy Gauge dismiss short-seller allegations
- Valuation demands perfection while revenue durability is conditional -- Myth Meter and Revenue Revealer converge
Where Lenses Differ
REGULATORY_EXPOSURE
The distinction is temporal: backward-looking regulatory impact has been absorbed (MANAGEABLE), but forward-looking enforcement surface area is genuinely wider (ELEVATED).
COMPETITIVE_POSITION
The disagreement reduces to whether current financial dominance or forward competitive trajectory should drive the classification.
The following publicly available documents were collected and extracted into a structured fact dossier that powered this analysis.
SEC Filing
- Annual Report (10-K) — FY2025
- Quarterly Report (10-Q) — Q3 FY2025
- Quarterly Report (10-Q) — Q1 FY2026
- Quarterly Report (10-Q) — Q2 FY2026
- Quarterly Report (10-Q) — Q3 FY2026
- Current Report (8-K) — Q3 FY2026 Earnings
- Current Report (8-K) — Q2 FY2026 Earnings
- Current Report (8-K) — Q1 FY2026 Earnings
- Current Report (8-K) — Q4 FY2025 Earnings
- Current Report (8-K) — H20 Export Control Notice
- Proxy Statement (DEFA14A) — 2025
- Current Report (8-K) — Q4 FY2026 Earnings
Earnings Transcript
- Q3 FY2026 Earnings Call Summary
- Q2 FY2026 Earnings Call Summary
- Q1 FY2026 Earnings Call Summary
- Q4 FY2025 Earnings Call Summary
- Q4 FY2026 Earnings Call Transcript
Research Document
- Vendor Financing Controversy Analysis
- DOJ Antitrust Probe Summary
- China SAMR Mellanox Anti-Monopoly Ruling
- Export Controls China Timeline
- Custom ASIC Competitive Threat Analysis
- Capex Sustainability Debate