Pdf Solutions Inc Q3 FY2024 Earnings Call

Good day, everyone, and welcome to the PDF Solutions, Inc Conference Call to discuss its Financial Results for the Third Quarter Conference Call ending Monday, September 30, 2024. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. If you have not yet received a copy of the corresponding press release, it has been posted to PDF's website at www.pdf.com. Some of the statements that will be made in the course of this conference are forward-looking statements, including statements regarding PDF's future financial results and performance, growth, rates and demand for its solutions. PDF's actual results could differ materially. You should refer to the section entitled Risk Factors on Pages 16 through 36 of PDF's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, and similar disclosures in subsequent SEC filings. The forward-looking statements and risks stated in this conference call are based on information available to PDF today. PDF assumes no obligation to update them. Now, I'd like to introduce John Kibarian, PDF's President and Chief Executive Officer; and Adnan Raza, PDF's Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Kibarian, please go ahead.

Thank you for joining us on today's call. If you've not already seen our earnings press release and management report for the third quarter, please go to the Investor Section of our website where each has been posted. Before Adnan discusses the financials in detail, I have some comments to make about our observations from the third quarter, our view of the market, and our business prospects for the remainder of the year. Bookings for the third quarter were driven by customers continuing to buy Exensio and Cimetrix connectivity software. Exensio sales include a large cloud customer renewing at a 50% increase in annual revenue due to the continued growth in usage, as well as a number of customers deploying Exensio for process control. Advanced logic, advanced packaging, and high-voltage semiconductor manufacturing fabs drove the increase in process control licenses. This is consistent with our perspective of where investments are being made in the industry. Improvements in equipment runtime licenses of Cimetrix connectivity were relatively broad-based. Our integrated yield ramp business was weak in Q3 as wafer volumes were low and new contracts were slower to sign. We believe that both situations will likely improve over the next few quarters. Turning to design for inspection execution during the quarter, I am pleased to report continued strong results. The eProbe manufacturing evaluation at our second customer is proceeding well; the customer and PDF team believe that the evaluation can be completed ahead of schedule. This speaks to the unique capabilities of the solution and the robustness of a hardware deployment. Utilization at our initial customer for eProbe DirectScan, where two machines are in place, remains high. While exact timing is always a challenge to predict, we anticipate both customers impacting our bookings over the next quarters. As our confidence in eProbe value and logic increased, we began exploring applications in memory R&D and production. In Q3, evaluations of the advantages of DirectScan on memory were very promising, with the customer reporting that sensitivity and throughput advantages were over 10x superior to conventional methods. The impending completion of the manufacturing evaluation, continued application development at our lead customer, and new applications in memory increased our confidence in the DFI eProbe business. As evidenced by our ramping capital spending this year, we anticipate the eProbe being a driver of revenue growth in Q4 and having a meaningful positive impact on our 2025 and beyond. Now, a few comments on our view of the environment and our perspective on the fourth quarter and beyond. As we talk with customers about their business, some are experiencing weakness while others are growing. Consistent with our view last quarter, we believe our business will be driven by fabs developing advanced logic processes, such as 2-nanometer, fabless customers deploying advanced test control software, often with AI/ML to augment conventional test methodologies, and companies engaging in digital transformation attempting to leverage data, whether that is IDMs, fabless, foundries, or large equipment companies. So while we anticipate an industry where there will not be a rising tide lifting all boats, we believe we can extend the momentum we've begun in Q3 for continued growth in Q4, and while it's too early to comment on specific numbers for 2025, we expect robust growth then also. I do want to remind folks about our one-day AI executive workshop in San Francisco on December 12, which is the day after the IEEE IEDM conference. We are bringing together a great collection of customers, industry experts, and PDF folks to talk about the advances in the application of AI for semiconductor manufacturing, driven in part by our new model ops, guided analytics, and our Exensio analytics platform. I invite you all to attend. I want to thank all of the PDF employees and contractors for their efforts during the year. Let's have a great Q4, so we can deliver another record year. Now, I'll turn the call over to Adnan, who will review the financials and provide his perspective on our results.

Thank you, John. Good afternoon, everyone. Good to speak with you all again today. We're pleased to review the financial results of the third quarter and to bring you up-to-date on the progress of the business. We posted our earnings release and management report on the Investor Relations section of our website. Our Form 10-Q has also been filed with the SEC today. Please note that all of the financial results we discuss in today's call will be on a non-GAAP basis, and a reconciliation to GAAP financials is provided on the materials on our website. Financial results for the third quarter of 2024 came in strong. Our bookings for the 9 months of 2024 have now exceeded our bookings for the full year of 2023. We ended the quarter with a backlog of approximately $240 million, essentially flat from last quarter, even with record revenues delivered this quarter. Our total revenue for Q3 came in at $46.4 million, which is 11% higher versus the prior quarter of this year and 10% higher versus the same quarter of last year. We are pleased with this strong performance in total revenues in spite of the decline in integrated yield ramp revenue. Our analytics revenue came in at $44.8 million, which was 17% higher versus the prior quarter and 13% higher versus the same quarter of last year. Analytics comprised 96% of revenue for the quarter. The strength in analytics revenue this quarter compared to last quarter was driven by all elements of our analytics platform. As John said, we’re pleased with the engagement level with our analytics customers, one example of which was a multi-year eight-figure renewal where we were able to increase the annual spend rate by approximately 50%, primarily driven by increased usage and licenses the customer is deploying as more people inside their organization rely on Exensio for yield analytics and manufacturing improvements. For our Cimetrix connectivity products, we saw a slight improvement in runtime licenses during Q3 compared to the prior quarter with strong year-over-year growth. Integrated yield ramp revenue was 4% of total revenues in Q3 and was lower by $1.9 million compared to the prior quarter and $1.2 million compared to the same quarter of the prior year. Overall, we are pleased with the growth rate we delivered for analytics, total revenues for the quarter, and continued engagements with our customers across our analytics platform. On gross margins, we reported an unusually strong 77% gross margin for Q3, which benefited from one-time perpetual software license deals during the quarter. While we're pleased with this result for the next quarter, we expect gross margin to revert towards what we have been seeing during the first half of this year, driven by a shift in the mix of our product offerings. As announced at our Analyst Day in October, we remain committed to our long-term gross margin target of 75% and making progress towards that over the coming quarters. Our operating expenses in Q3 grew compared to the prior quarter, primarily due to increased investments in sales and marketing and R&D to support our future growth. On EPS, we delivered $0.25 per share for the quarter, our strongest quarter for the year. Turning to the balance sheet, we ended the quarter with cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments of approximately $120 million, incrementally higher compared to the prior quarter ending cash balance of approximately $118 million. This quarter, we used a portion of our positive operating cash flow for investments in the eProbe tool as well as investment in a private company where we see opportunities to partner for the benefit of our leading-edge enterprise customers. After achieving year-over-year revenue growth for Q3 of 10% for total revenues and 13% for analytics revenue, we expect year-over-year total revenues in Q4 to grow in line with our long-term revenue growth target of 20%. We also thank our customers and partners for supporting the growth uplift we delivered this quarter and look forward to growing sequentially in Q4.

Our first question is from Blair Abernethy with Rosenblatt Securities.

Hi guys. Nice quarter. Good to see the growth coming back. I just wanted to ask a couple of questions. John, regarding the DFI, you've mentioned customer number one and number two. What are you observing in the pipeline of opportunities beyond those initial customers?

Sure. That's a great question. Thank you, Blair. So as you know, we have also a third customer that is part of an overall integrated package. That subscription includes Exensio and various other systems. I didn't talk about that customer this quarter, but we do expect that customer to proceed. For my prepared comments, I also talked about memory applications. And we have seen really great results there. We do see that as another growth vector for the systems. When we look back at logic, as I said in my prepared remarks, with both the first two customers, we continue to see more applications and more types of problems as the customers develop more 3D processes. So gate-all-around is 3D, contacts and vias in 3D, backside power is also 3D. More and more of these new features they're bringing out on advanced process nodes depend on 3D integration and 3D yield problems. The machine is uniquely capable of looking at 3D on the product and understanding exactly where it is in the product, and also being able to make sure it only excites the elements of the product that a person wants to excite to capture the correct failure mechanism. That's really a lot of where the unique capability is. So we expect more applications within logic, and now we're starting to see applications within memory.

Okay. Great. Thank you. And just add on CapEx year-to-date looks like around $12 million up a lot from last year, double the year before. So what should we be thinking about in terms of CapEx levels going forward?

Look, I mean, I think, Blair, nice to connect with you. I think we're feeling pretty good about the progress the DFI platform and the eProbe engagements have had. Obviously, having a few machines with one customer and another one with another customer. The evaluation that's going on with the third one, and then John alluding to these memory applications being positive, all give us confidence to start to think about okay, if we had to serve the needs of these customers, where should our order and the pipeline be? Obviously, we're going to be careful in terms of looking at what are the longer lead times versus the shorter ones as we have talked to you before. But we see increased levels of CapEx, and we have started to see some of that translate into revenue. We are seeing this quarter in growth and we hope to continue that trend. So I think on the CapEx side, you should see some increased level from us even from where we are today.

Okay. Great. And just one last one just for it to jump back in the queue. The SG&A step up in Q3 here from the first half of the year. Is that you should be thinking about that as kind of a new level or are there some one-time items in there?

Yes, this I mean, most of the increase, almost all of the increase is on the sales and marketing side. G&A, we're careful about managing it, and of course we report as a combined SG&A level. But on S&M, I think you'll see incremental expense if anything. We're focused on trying to maximize the S&M spend that we have and making the best out of that. Our investments in the future in the next quarter or so that we're thinking about internally are probably more on the R&D side than on the SG&A side.

Our next question is from the line of Gus Richard with Northland Capital Markets.

Congratulations on the good result. Could you talk a little bit about that perpetual license deal that you had in the quarter? I'm assuming that's a one-time thing. It looks like it grew incremental growth margin at like 98%, and I'm just trying to reconcile those two things.

Sure, I guess, as said in my prepared remarks. Actually, the largest bookings in the quarter were related to cloud renewals and new cloud deals, but they don't drive very much incremental revenue in the quarter. We have some customers that have legacy contracts on process control; typically because they buy that on a perpetual basis with capital purchases, and that drove incrementally more perpetual license revenue in this quarter. That's something that we've known about for quite a while. There are a couple of customers out there that have legacy contracts on this stuff, and they tend to buy those in link with their capital or build out. This is related to advanced logic and advanced packaging because you need more process control and advanced packaging, and it did drive the gross margin improvement in the quarter. So, as you said, it's basically a very high percent. Legacy customers with no support, not a lot of legacy handholding; it's pretty much just license revenue. Most of the one-time licenses on Cimetrix, it's basically all so.

Worth it. Got it. And so, you've got pretty decent sequential growth. Just given the 20% year-on-year you talk about, what's that perpetual license? I don't expect to repeat and I'm just wondering if you could give a little color on sort of what's filling the gap in the fourth quarter in terms of the increase in revenue; is it IYR coming back? Is it starting to recognize some?

So I think there are three factors there for looking at Q4. First, as I said in my prepared remarks, we do expect improvement in the IYR primarily related to customer contracts, a little bit on the improvement on the wafer fees from what we see reported from the customers. Number two, we do expect probably the bigger piece—DFI—as I said in my prepared remarks, customer completing earlier than we expected; they anticipated the evaluation as they have met all the criteria sooner than expected. And then, number three, as I said earlier, right, the largest bookings were actually related to cloud, and that tends to have a longer tail impact. Over the next few quarters, that will contribute, but it didn't do very much in Q3. So those three drivers will build out in Q4 and beyond. We do expect some modest improvement in runtime licenses on the Cimetrix side as well. From what we see in customers, runtime licenses were, as Adnan said, very significantly year-over-year and seem to be building as we go through the year. That's less of a driver though, in terms of total dollars.

Got it. That's helpful. And this is going to—well, let me start with the easiest way to look at this. Have you sized the voltage contrast market and given eProbe, how much do you think it expands that market as that comes into production or work where they could use some fab? And how much do you think memory, the potential of memory adding to the applications sort of expand the market opportunity for you? Any sizing would be helpful.

Sure. Yes. I mean, I think you can go and look at reports, but I mean the e-beam inspection business has been, I don't know, over north of a $0.5 billion. The number, I'm not clear in my head right now. But I think when you talk to folks, everyone expects it to grow. When I was meeting with a customer recently, they said with more 3D problems, even DRAM is going 3D if you look at it these days. Voltage contrast increasingly becomes important relative to see in line what's going on with the products. We expect that the e-beam and voltage contrast in particular business on the inspection side to outgrow the overall inspection market. And when I speak with even folks at other companies that have other products in the market, the executive team says the same thing. Everyone expects that number to grow pretty substantially faster than the rest of the market. The part of e-beam that we think is most valuable is that voltage contrast because of the 3D nature of defects. There are also applications that are growing that are related to imaging. Historically, the biggest piece of e-beam business has actually been memory, not logic. We started with logic, I think in part because of the complexity of being able to navigate around products and all of the software PDF had that made inspecting products possible at high throughputs. All the software we have around simulating, and simulated voltage contrast, and actually knowing how to direct the machine where exactly to look, we call that point scan. We had started in logic, but ultimately, the market in memory will be probably very significant. Over time, which one is larger, Gus, I think that's hard to say because looking backwards, that's a joke; you can only collect the dots if you look backwards. I think you miss where the world is going, right? The future of logic will be things like backside power and CFETs and all these things are three-dimensional issues. So the need for voltage contrast and logic, we think will go up. At the same time, memory is also going 3D, and so the need there will also increase. So overall, we think e-beam will be well over a $1 billion inspection market. The piece of voltage contrast, we expect to be the largest piece of it. The fraction that we are saying today by saying that the eProbe has applications both in memory and logic, we don't really have to worry about which of those two is bigger. We actually span both end-market applications.

We have a follow-up from Blair Abernethy from Rosenblatt Securities.

I just wanted to drill in a bit more, John, on the macro environment. Just sort of where you're seeing things tracking and we're covering in the last quarter. And I would say also, specifically, what are you guys seeing in the China market? It was down sort of fairly significantly for you guys from a year ago and prior, and just kind of want to see how are you feeling with that end market?

Yes, so in general, as I said, in my prepared remarks, we just see it's a mixed bag. If you look at our—what drove our revenue this quarter, it was clearly advanced packaging, advanced logic, some high-voltage semiconductors, and equipment going into those broader categories. But we did see an awful lot of back-end equipment. I didn't say that and then prepare myself. I thought it was kind of a model trend there, but for sure you can see some demand in those areas. Those tend to have a larger impact outside of China, right? Advanced logic and advanced packaging; most of that activity is going on in Taiwan, to a lesser extent Korea, and the U.S. So you see that shift in our geographic breakdown on revenue is looking out. We did report that IYR was weak and wafer IMEs weak that's greatly influenced by China. We did see weakness in China overall in terms of how the wafer fees coming out of fabs and the volume that said, we've seen continued heightened investment there and we do see new factories coming online, new nodes coming up, and new engagements on advanced development for them. What would be considered maybe not advanced by non-Chinese standards. So we do expect that piece of the business to recover. We don't think it's lost in any way, shape, or form. As we look into 2025 for that part of the market, we do think it will also be a mixed bag there. We expect some consolidation within the customer base. When I was chatting with folks in that country, I think there's been kind of the Cambrian period of lots of new species, and at some point, the total number of animals may increase but the diversity of species may decrease. I think you're going to see that over there over the next year.

Okay, great. And another question I had was just really around the partnership, particularly with SAP. Any progress to report on that one?

So, we have critical deployments with them ongoing. We were featured at their verticals meeting back in October, I believe it was, in Seattle, where we met with a number of mutual customers, and you'll see them; they were on a panel with me at the GSA and you'll see them at our AI conference as well. There are a number of selling activities going on with them and us and a number of things we're doing on the development side because as we look at the future of deploying AI for our customers, when you want to operationalize it, tying what knowledge you have about the products in the ERP system with what's going on the shop floor is very important. So, besides the impact it has for—we believe a number of these deployments, some that are ongoing and moving quite well. We do expect it to drive or be relevant to a lot of our AI deployments as well.

Okay, great. Thanks for that. And one last quick one. I'm not sure if there's anything—I haven't seen anything in the press, but just in terms of the batteries manufacturing sector, your Lantern Technology acquisition last year, anything to note there?

Yes. We're in deployments at some battery manufacturers working with the car companies that are working with the battery producers. So really that linkage between the car company and the battery manufacturer, really leveraging our AI around being able to, at high speeds, detect the variability in the manufacturing process at runtime. Those pilots are ongoing. We'll see as we finish this year what they result in terms of our expectations for 2025. But we're quite pleased with the technology progress.

Our next question comes from the line of William Jellison with D. A. Davidson.

Good afternoon and thanks for taking my question. The first one that I wanted to ask was if you could provide an update on some of the pilot programs you've been running in MLOps, and how those have been going and what sorts of progress you've seen thus far as that product enters the market.

Sure. Yes. We’re going to talk about this at the AI workshop, Will. We talked earlier this year about first customers. We've now got a number of pilots ongoing with other customers, mostly around this kind of complex test flow. So, using upstream information to make better predictions about downstream tests or actually our downstream make better predictions. These are things like understanding virtual burn-in insertion test points. In other words, can I, in AI, predict the burn-in result and thereby skip the burn-in step or minimize it or change it, or reduce it? Similarly, around matching, if I know the results at wafer sort, can I predict what this chiplet would look like inside the package? And therefore assign it to a collection of other chiplets that results in a better overall system performance at the package level. There are a couple of them ongoing that are in that kind of category; those kinds of categories, virtual insertion points, predictive insertion points. They really leverage the benefits of MLOps, which is that ability to span not a single test point but multiple test insertion points and take upstream models extracted from upstream data to make better access of downstream data and testing.

Great. Thank you, John. And then the follow-up question is, Adnan, if I heard correctly in the prepared remarks, it sounds like PDF made a small investment in a private company during the quarter. I was wondering if you could provide any more color on what that was.

Yes, absolutely. I'll speak to the numbers, and then I'll let John talk about the qualitative aspects, which I alluded to—that it's related to the success of our leading-edge customers. But yes, it's a $2 million investment in a convertible note. We felt the technology was quite differentiated. Sometimes there are opportunities to look at purchasing companies, or sometimes there are opportunities to see if you can fund them to the next phase of growth, particularly if they have engagements with customers that you deem important as well. This was one of those situations where it made sense for us to support the next phase of growth to the next milestone. It was a small enough investment for us that with the convert, we negotiated the terms that, I think, if the success happens, we all positioned. John, do you want to speak to the—

On the technical side of it, well, as I said in the prepared remarks of Blair, right, the future leading-edge businesses, they're all 3D, they're all the innovation goes on that. The electrical behavior of the systems, we've had a test vehicle business that's excellent at that—super valuable customers for that. The eProbe brings that in line. This is another way of exploiting our software stack to understand information about the design, the connection to our partnership in connection with Siemens, to understand the relationship between the design layout and the test faults. This lets us get additional insight and information. It is more on the physical measurement side, but it links with our software stack and is also potentially very synergistic with our pro.

Our next question comes from the line of Christian Schwab with Craig-Hallum Capital Group.

Most of the questions I had were answered, but as far as ‘25 outlook. I think you guys said you felt positive or should we anticipate anything different than operating at your, at a minimal, your 20% long-term growth target, is that the way we should be thinking about it?

Yes, we don't give a specific number, but obviously, we said when we talked about this year, we said the second half of the year would set us up for an annual 20% growth. You can see our Q4 number. So you can kind of see where we're heading with this, right?

Right now, I'm talking about calendar ‘25. So now that we're back…

On our—we think our Q4 is more representative of how we're thinking about 2025 than we think of 2024 on average, right? Because the first half-year was flat. So obviously, the blended average for 2024 is less than our 20% growth target. But as we look at 2025, my words were robust because we feel like 2024 leaves us on that growth number, and we expect to be in that zip code or better as we go into 2025.

We have a question from Andrew Wiener with Samjo Management.

I wanted to follow back up on your comments around DFI. It sounds like you're making good progress with the lead customer and the customer doing the manufacturing evaluation, and we're obviously further along in the year, and Adnan referred to CapEx spending and the long lead items. Just curious, last quarter, you sort of framed either what you thought the potential demand could be from those customers and or at least what we were planning to have capacity to potentially ship throughout, I guess the balance of this year and into '25. So maybe you could sort of update that given what you've learned over the last sort of three or four months.

Yes. I think by and large from a demand standpoint, we feel pretty good about where we are. We expect to be in the same range as—so it's going to be in that, I forget the exact numbers we gave out, but I think it was in the 4 to 8 range, if I remember correctly. In terms of shipments, we do believe we are pretty comfortable about that area, about that range. We will keep on monitoring our ability to build and ship as we go through this year, right? We don't have all the material that we would need to make that number yet. We don't have those things built and we don't have the timing set up. So we've got, unlike standing up the cloud, there is more orchestration required. We think the demand is out there for that range.

Okay. And that would be essentially from those two lead customers, and then if you got to the higher end, perhaps an initial memory customer. Is that the way to think about it?

Yes. That would be correct. Andrew, there's additional evaluation that we probably should think about. We really don't have—I think if we could put evaluation machines in other places like we do with the manufacturing evaluation, we would probably accelerate growth. So that's something we do need to factor as we think about our supply chain. Because people have a lot of questions. I think the manufacturing evaluation, I think people—the customer was able to see the results from our lab and wondered, okay, if you install a machine in a real facility and you run real lots through it in real-time, does it actually really work and can we use it? They were able to finish quickly because we felt pretty confident that the physics were the same around the globe. If we stuck the machine in there, it would result in sales more quickly. Let’s see, knock on wood, but we believe it's on path to do that. So we would probably want to have some capacity to expand that program if we think about the year.

Okay. And then you referenced, again, the early completion of the manufacturing evaluation. Without putting you on the spot to get into too much detail, assuming if you meet the criteria, is the intention to convert that tool into a revenue-generating tool at the customer? Or does it need to be taken back and any upgrades or anything like that done in order to convert that to revenue?

Yes. Without getting into specifics, Andrew, we would expect it to convert to revenue sooner than a standard situation.

Okay. And then I'm just curious separately, following up on the battery side question. Have you gotten far enough in understanding the capabilities of our systems and customer needs to, if the evaluations go well, size what the opportunity could be? I mean, I'm not necessarily saying the first contracts, but sort of in general, if one thinks about a battery line doing X number of batteries and generating X number of revenue. What or is it more like DFI on a sort of tool and software basis? I'm just trying to think about what it could mean.

Yes. I think we're still trying to figure that out ourselves, Andrew. What we realized going all the way back a couple of years ago to the first pilots we did, we were quite surprised at when you compare battery with semiconductor—the customers found us because they said, okay, what software is used for semiconductor manufacturing? That's a sophisticated manufacturing line to improve yields. How would that apply to us? We went and we started deploying, and what we found was the data collection rate on the equipment sensors is actually much more simplistic than what you would get off of a capital equipment tool in the front of a back-end test assembly facility fab. So we felt there was an opportunity there. Then they collect a lot of images but do almost nothing with them. Part of that is just all around how fast the line moves and therefore how quickly any data you get off a sensor or off the imager, how quickly you'd have to turn that into a control chart and operate. There, it's much, much faster than semiconductors. Things are moving at meters per second. We talk about the eProbe moving the wafer at 10 millimeters per second. This is moving at many meters per second. It's a whole different scale of data generation rate. What Lantern had was a very, very fast AI pipeline for being able to process and create alarms based on real information. We're trying to see how valuable that is. First of all, the customers want to believe that this will actually work in a real line. So that's what we're doing right now, and then if it does really work, okay, how do they use that to control their line better? There are many reasons why it should be very valuable because unlike semiconductors where most of your cost is the capital, the cost of the chip is depreciation of the capital. Most of your cost is consumable. Running a line even for a few minutes longer before you take action is actually quite expensive as a percentage of your capital build cost. There are reasons why it should be valuable. We are trying to work through all those things over these next months. The nice thing about it is the cycle times are so much faster. You have material in days and weeks, not months and years. You learn your ability to see the benefit of the in-line data and modeling and alarming more quickly. I suspect it's 2025 initial customers, and then we'll get some understanding about what that means. We made that investment; we didn't think that was going to be a quick hitter. It was a small investment that was a little bit of a moonshot.

Along those lines, John, but as you're doing these pilots, are you seeing them deploying or evaluating other systems, or is it an out-of-the-box approach of looking at your solutions? It would be sort of a completely new way of approaching their manufacturing process.

Great question, Andrew. We're still trying to understand that too. When we did our surveys, we didn't think there was anything else out there that was quite like what they had, and we thought, given our experience in semiconductor manufacturing and how important it is to always—they say shift to the left, move upstream any ability to predict downstream problems. We knew that was super important in our industry. We felt like it would be important in their industry. We were quite surprised at how late they get information relative to the production flow for this industry. It seemed like there wasn’t another alternative out there that was quite like what this team had built.

Okay. And then maybe my last question. I know you pointed out advanced test as sort of an area of strength. Can you talk a little bit about what you're doing now with your Advantest and Teradyne and how you're working with them to capture that opportunity versus sort of going directly to customers?

Yes. We've involved a certain amount of direct work with customers, right? A lot of what we're doing with them. They have, particularly an Advantest case, have brought a lot of compute; they call ACS to the sitting with the tester that enables more sophisticated AI. The standard way that models are run, they're very lightweight, often rules because you don't want to overload the process of running the test program with a very computationally intensive model. So what those edge boxes enable is to bring a much more sophisticated ML model or even some elements of design automation information to the edge with a certain level of security because of the way they're architected to work with the testers. A lot of what we've been doing with them is really looking at as you put more additional algorithms at the edge, how does that benefit the customer and their test? What can you do beyond a simple or a thinner model? This is true for both of them.

At this time, there are no more questions. This concludes the program. Thank you for joining us for today's call.