Thank you for standing by. My name is Jason, and I will be your conference operator for today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Fourth Quarter 2024 Financial Results Conference Call. I will now turn the call over to Liz Krutoholow. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Jason. Good afternoon and welcome to Tempus' Fourth Quarter 2024 Conference Call. This afternoon Tempus released results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2024. Joining me today from Tempus are, Eric Lefkofsky, Founder and CEO of Tempus; and Jim Rogers, CFO. Before we begin, I would like to remind you that during this call management may make forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially. For a discussion of these risks, please visit our 10-K filed today February 24, 2025, as well as any future reports that we file with the SEC. During the call, we will discuss non-GAAP financial measures, which are not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Definitions of these non-GAAP financial measures along with reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures are included in our fourth quarter earnings release, which has been furnished to the SEC and is available on our website at investors.tempus.com. I would now like to turn the call over to Eric.

Thank you, and thanks everyone for joining the call. I'm going to highlight a few quick bullets and then we'll be happy to take questions. Q4 was a fantastic quarter for Tempus across the board. Our revenue growth accelerated to 35.8% year-over-year in the fourth quarter. Gross profit growth accelerated to 49.7%. So even though our revenues were growing rapidly, our gross profit was actually growing even more rapidly. We ended the year with $940 million in total remaining contract value and 140% net revenue retention. These were both up pretty materially. A reason that our gross profit growth was accelerating is our Data and Services business just had a really strong Q4, finishing a strongly year. That propelled some of that growth and also is the reason we ended the year with an uptick in total remaining contract value and record net revenue retention. We also closed the acquisition of Ambry Genetics on February 3, which is exciting as we've talked about that historically. But that's now behind us. We'll have two months this quarter of Ambry's results in our numbers. We also increased our revenue guidance. We had historically given $1.23 billion but we've upped that to $1.24 billion for 2025 and expect to be adjusted EBITDA positive and generate about $5 million of adjusted EBITDA. Obviously, we're not providing a range. We give fairly specific numbers, but there's always an implied range. We feel confident enough that we're increasing our guidance for 2025. Finally, I want to just note if you read the letter Jim and I put out you'll catch this in his section, but we did extend our Google agreement for another five years. It's kind of an awesome win for us in that it allows us to avail ourselves of really best-in-class rates. It pushes out the note we have with Google another five years. That note, as you'll recall, comes down as we spend on their platform, so it gives us more chance to work that down. All in great quarter. It's where we want to be. You want revenues accelerating in terms of growth. Our gross profit is growing quicker. Our costs are in line. We're generating the kind of leverage we want to see and it's really just nice to be in a position where our two main businesses, Genomics and Data, are really firing on all cylinders in a period of strength. On that note, happy to take questions.

We will now open the line for questions. The first question comes from the line of Tejas Savant with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Hey guys. Good evening and congrats on closing the Ambry transaction. Eric, just one question there for me. One of the benefits you highlighted in terms of bringing Ambry in-house is that it gives you a West Coast lab. So over what time frame could we see you bring some of your somatic workflows to that location? And then Jim, on the seasonality in the Ambry business, how should we think about what's contemplated in the guide? Obviously, just two months of contribution here in 1Q, so there will be a mathematical ramp, but beyond that anything to think about in terms of seasonality through the year?

Yes. So I can start. So, Ambry does give us a West Coast lab. For those that may not recall, we have labs in Chicago, Raleigh, North Carolina, and Atlanta. Now, with the acquisition of Ambry, we pick up a lab out West. Over time, we will look to have our somatic or comprehensive genomic profiling assays run out of their lab. We'll look to bring some of their inherited risk assays into our labs. But there's no immediate plans to do that in the next few quarters. It's more of a longer-term initiative to ensure we have appropriate redundancy operating out of all of our big labs across the country. We're fortunate that Tempus already has that in place today between Chicago and Raleigh. So we have built a lot of that redundancy, both in terms of operating workflows in case one lab has a problem or something goes down. We also benefit from some of the reimbursement diversity of having those two labs. The California lab of Ambry will give us additional redundancy and benefits as well. I would say over the next year or two, we'll look to start moving some of those assays and cross-pollinating.

Yes. And then I'll take the second question regarding the seasonality of the Ambry business. I'd say, they experienced the same seasonality that we do with our business and other labs. Typically around the holidays, things slow down. I would say that given where they're at in terms of capturing market share, as well as growing their rare and undiagnosed business, we would anticipate revenues growing throughout the year similar to what they do in the Tempus business. So, there is some seasonality, but we would just anticipate revenues continuing to grow quarter after quarter, no different than the Tempus business.

Got it. And then a quick follow-up on the Data side of things. In your prepared remarks, you guys flagged one data delivery project that slipped out of the quarter. Can you just quantify the impact? And was that a customer delay? And Jim, on that note, what exactly is the data contribution that you're baking into '25 into your guide? Should we think of that as a safe number that's essentially derisked? Or is there any sensitivity depending on pharma budgets, particularly for the smaller customers who haven't signed those strategic longer-term contracts with you?

Yes. I'll begin with the first point. We had a significant data delivery exceeding $10 million that could have been completed in Q4, but it naturally timed to the early part of this year. I'm mentioning this because it wasn't an issue on the client's side, our side, or any side. In every quarter, as we grow and our Data business expands, there can be timing delays of these data deliveries by a month or so. We always have various factors at play, and I wanted to point that out. If that data delivery had been completed in Q4, it would have substantially increased our Q4 revenue. That's why I mentioned when discussing the $700 million revenue target, it could actually be $693 million or $706 million, and most of this variability has little to do with our business performance. It often just depends on the timing of when tests are ordered or when data is delivered.

And then the second part of your question, Tejas, around the '25 guide and where the contribution from Data is, I’d say the $940 million of total remaining contract value obviously gives us good visibility into 2025. The larger agreements have committed spend and those larger subscriptions get delivered quarterly. The smaller agreements, there's always some subset of those that get signed and delivered in the year, but the majority is under contract as you head into 2025.

Got it. That’s helpful. Appreciate it guys.

The next question comes from the line of Rachel Vatnsdal with JPMorgan. Please go ahead.

Great. Thank you. This is Casey on behalf of Rachel. Just had one on the new guide for 2025. When backing into the math, it looks like Ambry is now an implied 17% top line growth rate if keeping core Tempus at 30%. So, maybe just help us walk through how we should think about Ambry in the model in 2025? And then I have one follow-up. Thanks.

Yes. Historically, we've noted that Ambry experienced some challenges with average selling prices and market fluctuations in 2024, which resulted in a shift in volume towards competitors. Despite that, they have a top-tier product that has been growing faster than the market overall. Therefore, while they were expected to grow significantly, there were certain factors in 2024 that boosted their growth rate. As these factors diminish in 2025, we might see their growth rate, which typically would be in the low 20s, drop to the high teens. We've mentioned this in the last quarter and believe it could hold true now. How the year unfolds will be important to observe. We are projecting core Tempus growth to be close to 30%, while Ambry is anticipated to be in the high teens, possibly around 17% to 19%.

Got it. That's helpful. And then just as a quick follow-up, you mentioned 20% of revenues will fall in 1Q. I understand you have the ADLT percentage of volume kind of growing over the course of the year and other reimbursement tailwinds. Can you just walk us through the quarterly phasing of the guide and maybe what the exit rate looks like? Thank you.

Yes. So, Q4 is always a very big data delivery quarter for us. So, as you get into Q1, Q1 is always kind of in terms of percentage of overall revenue in the year the lowest. What we’ve guided is consistent with what we’ve seen in previous years. Specific to ADLT status, again, in the commentary that we provided, we'll end the quarter at about 20% of our xT volume moving over to ADLT. As highlighted previously, kind of, the national launch started in January, but it will take the balance of the year and into next year until we have the vast majority of that test on ADLT. So, we guided to 20% of the revenues in Q1 and we would anticipate a similar phasing of what we saw last year.

Got it. Thank you.

The next question comes from the line of Mike Ryskin with Bank of America. Please go ahead.

Great. Thanks for taking my question, guys. I want to follow up really quick to Casey's point right there on Ambry contribution. I just want to get a little deeper into sort of how you think about the model longer term. I mean you talked about what it was contributing to growth or what it grew in 2024 and some of the accelerants. Like we just discussed sort of like now it looks like it's high teens in 2025. I just want to make sure I caught that correctly. Just how we flesh it out in our model in 2026 and beyond? Just can you talk about what you see the Ambry business doing longer term? And I've got a follow-up. Thanks.

Yes, I believe we’ve indicated that for Tempus, you should consider our long-term growth rate to be around 25%, which is a strong rate. Our priority is on sustainable long-term growth rather than maximizing short-term gains. You'll often see us opting for sustainable and durable initiatives rather than chasing short-lived quarterly growth. Interestingly, this year, we've experienced some fluctuations in growth rates, as mentioned in Jim's commentary regarding adjustments in ASP and cash collections that will impact future periods. At our size, gaining an additional $20 million or $30 million in revenue can complicate future comparisons. However, I anticipate that Ambry's growth rate will align closely with ours in the Genomics sector over the long term, both capable of growing at around 25% sustainably. The Data and Apps segments may grow at a faster pace, and core Tempus might benefit from our Data and AI applications. Nevertheless, core Genomics areas like comprehensive genomic profiling, therapy selection, minimal residual disease, and inherited risk profiling still present significant growth opportunities. I believe that in the future, most people will undergo risk profiling, and since Ambry leads in this area, the potential market numbers could reach into the hundreds of millions, especially considering they are currently performing only a fraction of those tests. Thus, I expect their growth rates will gradually align more closely with ours.

Okay. All right. And then for the follow-up a little bit. I want to touch on the Data side of things. One is you kind of talked about the total contract value in some of your prepared remarks. I think $940 million is where you ended the year. It sort of has been at that ballpark all year in the low $900 million, $920 million, $930 million, $940 million. So we've always thought of that as a leading indicator of growth. How should we think about that going forward? I mean, there were some remarks in the prepared remarks text that you actually kind of expect it to decline in the future given it's a large number. But yeah, I mean just why shouldn't that be an indicator of future revenue growth? So wouldn't you like to see that number grow higher?

Yeah. So I'll start, and then Eric, you can chime in. I'd say the number did grow higher throughout the course of the year. We also kind of grew the amount of revenue that came out of that was at a record level as well. Any growth in that number when you're achieving the revenue growth that we saw is something you'd be very happy with. The way that we view the total remaining contract value is it is at a healthy enough level to give you some visibility into the next several years of revenue. At the level that it's at, given the amount of revenue that we recognize in a given year, it provides that level of visibility. As we've talked about, when we get larger deals then that can result in some fluctuation, and you don't sign large deals every single quarter. We highlighted some of the larger deals that we signed in the quarter with BI and Illumina. Again, we think that it's at a very healthy level for us to achieve the targets that we're looking to achieve.

Yes, the situation is uneven. However, the growth and high net revenue retention indicate that our core business is very strong. To grow from about $1 billion in total contract value while delivering $250 million in a year, we needed to sign more than what we delivered, which is impressive. Ideally, we would like the growth to match our growth rate. For example, if our growth rate suggests we should sign all the data delivered plus an additional 30%, we would expect growth of around $75 million, but it only increased by $30 million. Despite this, the business remains healthy. While one might wish for an increase of $30 million or $40 million more, we have nearly a $1 billion buffer in our data business. Therefore, fluctuations are expected; some years may bring a $200 million deal, causing a significant jump. Growth won't be consistent every quarter or year. Ultimately, as we close out the year with more in reserve than we began with, despite withdrawing nearly $0.25 billion, it shows that the business is in excellent condition.

All right. Thanks. I'll get back in the queue.

Next question comes from the line of Ryan MacDonald. Please go ahead.

Thank you for taking my question. It's great to see the official announcement about becoming an in-network provider for various Blue Cross Blue Shield plans. I would like to explore that further. What impact do you expect going in-network will have on volume? More importantly, could you provide an update on how this affects reimbursement?

Yeah. So I'd say the announcement that we made about going in-network with folks as a reminder we're primarily an out-of-network lab with commercial payers. Medicare and Medicare Advantage represent about 50% of our volume. So about a little bit less than half is commercial payers. Any win that we can get with commercial payers is an uplift to reimbursements. We don't have a significant concentration among commercial payers, so no one payer, if we go in-network, materially changes the reimbursement profile. However, chipping away at that 45% or so of commercial volume is important long term as we look to drive ASPs up. The biggest ASP tailwinds as we get into 2025 are migrating volume over the ADLT version of the assay, which will primarily impact Medicare or Medicare Advantage volume, although that's some commercial volume as well. Then for xF or liquid biopsy that was going through the gap fill process with Medicare last year. That resulted in about a $300 uplift in reimbursement for Medicare. Again, another tailwind that we'll have in 2025 that impacts about 50% of our volume. These smaller wins on the commercial side impact a smaller percentage.

Got it. That's helpful, Jim. And then maybe on the regulatory environment, there's been a lot of changes at the FDA or proposed changes some of which could be favorable for AI companies but also a lot of layoffs that could potentially delay decision-making or trial approvals. Based on what we've seen today and where you sit, you see what's going on at the FDA or in the broader federal government as more of a headwind or a tailwind to Tempus?

I think it's generally a positive factor. We are a technology-focused company specializing in AI-enabled diagnostics. We believe we gain advantages as a tech-driven organization concentrated on AI. These developments typically aim to enhance efficiency and technology, and we see benefits from that approach. There might be minor slowdowns due to staffing changes at the FDA, but we do not anticipate these to be significant. Our business isn't dependent on any specific FDA decisions that could impact us. Overall, we view it as a positive factor.

Got it. Thanks, guys.

The next question comes from the line of Dan Brennan with TD Cowen. Please go ahead.

Great. Thanks for the questions. I know there's a question or two on the Data side. But I was just hoping implicit in the guide. So if I'm thinking about core Tempus growing 30, presumably we have that level in our model. But we've got Data growing in kind of the mid-30s plus with genomics organic growing in the mid-20s. Does that sound like the right ZIP code? Or if not can you help us think through what the right levels of growth for those two businesses are?

I think that's largely aligned. I think on the genomics side, obviously, you have some ASP tailwinds that we would anticipate revenues outpacing volume growth in Data as it has this year as well, kind of growing slightly more quickly than the Genomics business. So I think you're on track, Dan.

Got it. And then just maybe on the margin guide, the $5 million EBITDA margin, which is good. Can you just help break down a little bit in terms of core Ambry versus the core Tempus business? And are there any synergies assumed in order to get to that number? What would be some of the drivers if you were to beat that number in 2025?

We have considered it a goal to achieve adjusted EBITDA and become cash flow positive, which has been a focus for us. When planning our investments for the upcoming year, we base them on our revenue and gross profit growth expectations. This allows us to invest in technology, research and development, and personnel. Our aim is to improve our bottom line to transition to profitability, and we are close to making that shift, which is exciting. Our guidance for 2025 indicates that we expect to reach this point. However, in the short term, we are not focused on maximizing profits. If we exceed EBITDA expectations, we are likely to reinvest those profits into growth. For 2025, our strategy will center on growth rather than just meeting financial targets. If we outperform, our priority will be to enhance our business investments and growth initiatives.

And then Dan, on your question around synergies in the guide, no significant synergies are built in there. We anticipate kind of running Ambry fully as a standalone business at least for 2025. We would be well into 2026 before we'd be realizing anything significant.

The next question comes from the line of Subbu Nambi with Guggenheim. Please go ahead.

Hi, guys. Thank you for taking my question. Eric and Jim, what is embedded in your 2025 guidance, if anything for this year? With respect to expectations for improvements in payer coverage for core Tempus tests, as a result of the Ambry acquisition and Ambry payer relationships and contracts. That's one, and I have a follow-up.

Yes. So the overlap between the two businesses is relatively small. It's a minimal amount of impact. As we migrate the reimbursement over to Ambry, think less than $10 million. So there's not a ton of overlap in the current business, but there will be some small benefit that we receive as we migrate that reimbursement.

Okay. Got it. And then you most recently announced a commercial agreement with ArteraAI to commercially offer their prostate cancer prognostic test. Could you tell us about the process that leads to an agreement to offer a test like this? And then, how do you decide to choose one test versus another provider over competing offerings? What are your priorities in that decision?

One of the things that we also highlighted in the quarter is, we're now connected to about 3,000 hospitals or so in the United States. You're looking at a significant percentage of the United States that's connected to Tempus. One of the benefits of that connectivity is not just that we can efficiently sequence patients and help them navigate to the right therapy and produce a lot of data that helps research and development downstream. It also allows us to connect these AI-enabled insights back into the US healthcare system at scale. So that connectivity is at the heart of the proprietary value that Tempus is building. We can deploy our own algorithms into the market or we can deploy third-party algorithms. I'd suspect you'll see us over time bring more third-party algorithms onto our platform. We have a team that reviews these things and makes those decisions. It's typically patient-led and physician-led to determine what's best for patients and what do our doctors want. I think, as I've said historically, I would not be surprised if we have dozens or hundreds of algorithms running on our platform over time.

Thank you for that, Eric. I’ll get back in the queue.

The next question comes from the line of Doug Schenkel with Wolfe Research. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good afternoon, and thank you for taking my questions. Two topics I want to cover. First on MRD, could you just speak to when you are expecting any data readouts on tumor naive or tumor informed, so both products? And, I guess related to that, I just want to confirm that there's nothing in revenue guidance related to both given the current state of reimbursement and the need for more data. That's the first topic. The other is on capital deployment. Obviously, you were active at the end of last year with Ambry. As you think about priorities from here, what's the appetite for more M&A based on your balance sheet situation in the current market environment? Thank you.

Yeah. So I can start and Jim can jump in. In terms of MRD, obviously, we've taken a tumor-naive assay to market. We started in CRC and already put out some studies related to that assay. There will be more over time. But there's nothing significant that would fundamentally change our trajectory. We have an assay in the market. We've submitted for reimbursement. Unless MolDx needs something different for reimbursement, we're on a good path to have that assay reimbursed at some point in late 2025. The next step for us will be to take that assay into other disease or into other subtypes which we will do over time. We're collecting samples now and will bring that assay to market. We're consistently refining the assay to make it more sensitive and lower the number of detection. So that work is ongoing and we will look to bring that to other disease areas over time. But there's no pivotal study that we need to conduct. We're already past all that and moving forward. I think the same is true for Personalis; they have assays in the market and non-small cell lung and breast and IO. They've already submitted quite a bit, and they too have quoted that they expect reimbursement to show up sometime later this year although you have to read their filings to get the most up to date. Concerning the guidance, we have a long history of only focusing on what we can see. Until we know that assay is being reimbursed, we're not going to include anything substantive from it because we’re in a world where it could be later this year, or early next year, Q3 or Q4. It’s just impossible to tell. Once we get reimbursement, we'll start ramping up these assays at greater scale, because obviously getting paid is a good precursor to ramping them up. Regarding capital, we also said last quarter that we feel pretty good in terms of our genomics footprint. We feel like we've got a great complement, really best in class at a scale that's unique. We're not looking to do big things there. We consistently look at smaller things on the Data side and the AI side. To the extent we find something small that's interesting, we might buy it but nothing big is on the horizon.

The next question comes from the line of Andrew Brackmann with William Blair. Please go ahead.

Hi guys. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. Maybe on the reimbursement front, you obviously had the big win on the ECG algo getting reimbursed earlier this year. I guess bigger picture, does this sort of change how you're viewing payers' willingness to potentially expand reimbursement for these AI-based diagnostics? Or how should we sort of be thinking about that as a potential catalyst over the coming year or so?

Yeah. I think from our perspective, we're really excited about it. It indicates a willingness for people to reimburse for these types of tests that are clinically validated and provide clinical utility. This doesn't mean that we're going to show up at the end of Q1 and have hundreds of our algorithms reimbursed. There's still a long road to go in terms of securing reimbursement for the various types of algorithmic diagnostics that we have. We highlighted this because it's something that we've talked about in the past, indicating that there's a long road but there are some near-term milestones this being one of them that demonstrates that it is possible for these types of things to be reimbursed which is why we're so excited about it.

Great. Thanks for that. And then maybe on the commercial front just post Ambry close now. How should we sort of be thinking about any adds or changes to the way that the reps are going to be deployed and incentivized moving forward?

Yes. So no significant changes. The Ambry reps typically sell into genetic counselors. Our reps are selling into oncologists. So there's not a ton of overlap. We don't anticipate there being any significant changes.

Thanks, guys.

The next question comes from the line of Mark Schappel with Loop Capital. Please go ahead.

Thank you for taking my question. Eric, the company recently announced the launch of Olivia AI, the personal health concierge app. Could you discuss the significance of the app and your plans for monetization?

The app will get monetized on a monthly subscription similar to ChatGPT. I think it's currently $12 per month. It's starting off small. We just released the app to a broader audience. We need to get user feedback. We need to make changes and improve things. You don't really know how these things scale until you start getting folks engaged. We're super excited at the potential to bring our core technology platform that allows us to make sense of all this multimodal data and make diagnostics intelligent. We're excited to bring that to patients at scale. We think them being able to move around all their healthcare data in their phone, have it stored at a secure locker, and be able to talk to that data and get insights using our AI engine is pretty awesome. It’s small early, but could be transformative.

Great. Thanks. And as a follow-up, could you just walk us through your top, say, two or three investment priorities for the business in the coming year?

Our priority is to stay focused on what's been working and make sure that we're heads down in terms of building our Genomics business and our Data business and deploying our connected network to grow our applications business.

The next question comes from the line of Dan Arias with Stifel. Please go ahead.

Yes. Hi, guys. Thanks for getting me in here. Jim on the Data side, the $300 million in renewals that you've talked about for Astra and for GSK. Can you just remind us on what the timing is for that renewal coming up? Is there any change in the confidence around that happening with the terms that exist here for the initial agreements?

Yes. Just a reminder that the $300 million of opt-ins that we've highlighted in the total remaining contract value are the last 18 months or so of the AstraZeneca and GSK agreements. There's no updates. We're still several years away from kind of hitting those renewals and kind of no change in our confidence in terms of them renewing.

Okay. But is that...

The range of those renewals is like 2027 to 2029. We're still years away.

Yes.

Okay. And then Jim just on Ambry. Pricing in hereditary has obviously not been static. Is there an implicit ASP assumption that you can share, maybe not necessarily the exact dollar amount per se, but just more like change year-over-year that you're baking in? If I could sneak a second one on here. Eric, the accelerants that you called out as being meaningful for Ambry, is that cash collection solely? Is that what you're referring to? Or are there other items that you saw as one-off there?

Yes. So on the accelerant in terms of reimbursement it was cash collections, just the increase in their collection rates. In terms of ASPs, we haven't disclosed specific ASPs related to Ambry. They are puts and takes like there are everywhere else. They'll have new in-network contracts which may change it one way, increased cash collections the other way. So puts and takes but no significant changes kind of year-over-year on the ASP side for Ambry.

Okay. Thank you.

The next question comes from the line of David Westenberg with Piper Sandler. Please go ahead.

Hi, thank you for taking my question. I would like to discuss the general seasonality of the business. I believe you mentioned that you expect 20% of the revenue in Q1. I understand that you are anticipating slightly lower contributions, specifically only two months from Ambry. Could you please clarify the typical seasonality in the business as we progress through the year?

Yes. So I'd say there's different seasonality for the different product lines. Genomics follows the same seasonality that you see from other labs. Obviously, at the end of the year, the number of orders that are being placed around the holidays is low. January tends to be kind of a slow start. Similar when people are typically on vacation, there's some slowness. So we're no different than other labs on the Genomics side. On the Data side, we typically tend to be back half of the year weighted. A lot of our conversations and deliveries align with pharma budgeting cycles, which typically follow the calendar year. We anticipate a phasing in 2025 being similar to what it was in 2024.

That's very helpful. I understand that there is some revenue lag that carries into January. Regarding the contract revenue of $940 million, I appreciate the insights you shared earlier about its variability. How should we consider the long-term relationship between those revenues? Should they grow at a similar pace over time? I recognize that Data and Services revenue will be variable, while Pharma revenue might be recognized more consistently. Is there a specific recognition period for that? Thank you.

Yes. So the bulk of our total remaining contract value has been Data. As we've just talked about with AstraZeneca and GSK, these people sign multiyear deals, and if you were an investor who's been in Tempus for a long time, you could see the total remaining contract value, which maybe was a few hundred million dollars at one point, signed some of these big deals and it jumped up to $700 million or $800 million or $900 million. There could be years where the total remaining contract value grew by 200% or 300%. Yes, long-term if you look at a 10-year horizon, your total remaining contract value should eventually equal the data you deliver and grow at a similar growth rate. But if the bookings number grows by 200%, it’s not going to grow by 30% for the next three years like magically; it can be lumpy. Some years it can grow by 200%. Some years it can grow by 0%. But in the aggregate, it should match your data deliveries. If we’ve signed large contracts, that’s great for us, and we feel like we're in a good spot.

Very helpful. Thank you.

That concludes our Q&A session. I will now turn the call over to Lizzie Krutoholow for closing remarks.

I want to thank everyone for joining the call, and we'll see you next quarter.

Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect. Have a nice day.