Veeva Systems Inc Q4 FY2024 Earnings Call

Hello and thank you for standing by. My name is Regina, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Veeva Systems Fiscal 2024 Fourth Quarter and Full Year Results Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. With that, I would like to turn the conference over to Gunnar Hansen, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, and welcome to Veeva's fiscal 2024 Fourth Quarter and Full Year Earnings Conference Call for the quarter and fiscal year ended January 31st, 2024. As a reminder, we posted prepared remarks on Veeva's Investor Relations website just after 1:00 PM Pacific today. We hope you have had a chance to read them before the call. Today's call will be used primarily for Q&A. With me today for Q&A are Peter Gassner, our Chief Executive Officer; Paul Shawah, EVP, Commercial Strategy; and Brent Bowman, our Chief Financial Officer. During this call, we may make forward-looking statements regarding trends, our strategies, and the anticipated performance of the business, including guidance regarding future financial results. These forward-looking statements will be based on our current views and expectations and are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ materially. Please refer to the risks listed in our earnings release and the risk factors included in our most recent filing on Form 10-Q. Forward-looking statements made during the call are being made as of today, February 29, 2024, based on the facts available to us today. If this call is replayed or viewed after today, the information presented during the call may not contain current or accurate information. Veeva disclaims any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements. We may discuss our guidance on today's call, but we will not provide any further guidance or updates on our performance during the quarter unless we do so in a public form. On the call, we may also discuss certain non-GAAP metrics that we believe aid in the understanding of our financial results. A reconciliation to comparable GAAP metrics can be found in today's earnings release and in the supplemental investor presentation, both of which are available on our website. With that, thank you for joining us, and I'll turn the call over to Peter.

Thank you, Gunnar, and welcome everyone to the call. It was a great quarter and year of execution for Veeva with strength across the business and results above our guidance. Total revenue in the quarter was $631 million, with non-GAAP operating income of $239 million. For the year, total revenue was $2.4 billion and non-GAAP operating income was $843 million. This past year was important in many ways for Veeva and the industry. And I'm proud of all the team accomplished. We delivered the Veeva Compass Suite, giving the industry a better alternative to legacy data. We established the clinical platform and progressed on our new commercial cloud. It was a milestone year that I think we'll look back on as one of the most significant. We'll now open up the call to your questions.

Our first question will come from Joe Vruwink with Baird. Please go ahead.

Great. Hi, everyone. Thanks for taking my questions. I wanted to ask about the services outlook and how it's changed from your preliminary views. The shareholder letter mentions investments related to both CRM at large customers. Maybe you can just go into the approach you're planning to take with these initial migrations and how it is differing from those original plans? And then related to that question, does this outlook assume there's maybe more large customers, top 20 customers, ultimately undertaking migration activity than perhaps has been publicly announced to this point?

I'll take that one and then Paul, maybe you can join in as well. There's no major change in our strategy. It's just a refinement as things get closer into view. We've decided and have been able to provide a little more internal guidance about how much investment we'll make in Vault CRM related services. We think it's just the right thing to do. Moving to Vault CRM wasn't anything our customers asked for; they were happy with Veeva CRM. We're going to bring them a better solution over time, an integrated solution with sales, marketing, and medical—all industry-specific and all in the same database. But it wasn't anything really they were asking for or budgeting for. So we really want to do the right thing by those customers because remember, Vault CRM is just one of the things that we have with those customers. We have big customer relationships and Vault CRM is just one of the things. So we want to help them through that. So no real change and Paul, in terms of progress with top 20 type CRM customers, maybe you can give an update?

Yes, Joe, thanks for the question. We're progressing well with our top 20 customers. Really, all of our customers pleased to announce that we—you heard us announce two top 20 global commitments. We announced that last quarter. I'm pleased to announce a third moving their existing Veeva CRM footprint. They're committing to move all of that over to Vault CRM, so now this is three top 20 pharmas. So that's just another example of the kinds of progress that we're making. We're also in deep conversation with all of the rest of the top 20 and many other customers. And those conversations are progressing well, given the innovation that Peter has talked about. We're doing something fundamentally different, integrating sales, marketing, and medical in a very tight and unique way. So I'm optimistic you'll hear more about top 20s over time committing to Vault CRM.

Okay. That's great color and congratulations on the new win. At the segment level, maybe it looks like the commercial business is set to accelerate based on the outlook. R&D decelerating. I suppose I wanted to focus on R&D because there's quite a lot of traction just in terms of what is being awarded at the moment. I think there were two new enterprise EDC wins with top 20 this quarter, for example. Is maybe the rating between the lines that the level of activity is actually better than might be reflected in revenue just in this upcoming 12 months, but you're seeing visibility for maybe strength beyond this upcoming fiscal 2025?

Yes, I'll take that one. So if we step back just for a high level and how the business breaks down, overall, the Total Addressable Market (TAM) is about $20 billion, right? So it's a big TAM, and we're less than 15% penetrated. So we got a long way to go. That's important to remember. It's a long-term thing that this is going to be a growing and profitable business for many years. And then the other thing is quite durable because these products are critical products and they're complex products. They're not things like e-mail or something like that. And then we have a lot of products that fit together. So with that context, I think it's relevant to look at the different parts. You can break it down into three parts from a revenue perspective: the Development Cloud, the R&D area. That's the biggest one—it's about 50% of our revenue right now, and it's about 65% of our overall opportunity, and it's growing roughly 20% or so, and that will really grow well into the foreseeable future. And because we have a lot of new products, we have a clear competitive advantage there, and these are mission-critical systems. Customers don't rush in these areas. These are critical systems. They are some long-term programs. For example, a couple of these wins that we had will roll out, and they will get to full revenue four and five years from now. So yes, the fiscal impact comes much later. One thing important to remember, 10 years ago when we were going public, Development Cloud was quite a bit less than 5% of our revenue, and now it's over 40% and still growing in the 20%. So that's Development Cloud. The other areas like our CRM and the add-ons form what we call the CRM Suite. In that area, the revenue is stable. It's not really growing because of two things: one, we have really high market share and happy customers on our core CRM or Veeva CRM and some of the add-ons. And then we need to migrate those customers to Vault CRM before we can sell the new add-on products like marketing automation and service centers. That's kind of a stable 25%. The other 25% is a mix of other things in commercials. If we call that other commercial, this is some stable things like commercial content and Crossix where we are the market leaders, but we continue to grow at a moderate and steady pace, and customer success is really high with those products. Then newer products like Link and Compass are small now but are growing rapidly on a percentage basis, and they have high potential if we can execute well. Now we have to remain seen if we can execute well. Overall, this other commercial area that I talked about is growing roughly 15% or so now and that can continue to grow into the foreseeable future as well. So I thought it was good to give that background on how to look at the business overall.

Now that's a lot of good detail. Thank you very much. I'll leave it there.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Saket Kalia with Barclays. Please go ahead.

Okay. Great. Hey guys, thanks for taking my questions here. Brent, maybe I'll start with you. Maybe just congrats on those two additional EDC wins. The question is, can you maybe talk about how billings ramps are sort of contributing to next year's billings right? You've had great success in the EDC market. Is there a way to think about sort of next year's billings growth with or without the benefits of those ramps? Does that make sense?

Yes. I understand. Thanks, Saket. So real pleased that how we exited fiscal year '24, exceeding our billings guide, so executing well there. If you think about the EDC wins, by way of example, we're still pretty early days, as Peter said, so five of those top eight wins have been in the last 12 months. We're still early in that ramping phase. So they're contributing more in fiscal year '25 than they did in fiscal year '24, and those eight will continue to contribute more as we look out forward.

Got it. Got it. That's helpful. Peter, maybe for my follow-up for you. It's a little bit of a higher-level question. Can you just give us an update on how you're feeling about the health of your end markets? I mean, it seems like things are just relatively stable compared to last quarter, which is great to hear. But since you spend so much time with customers, how do you think customers are thinking about investing in technology here in 2024 versus what was a tougher 2023?

Yes. I think there's a little more optimism. The science is going well. We've had this disruption of conflicts and interest rates for a while now and people are getting kind of used to it. So there's a little more optimism. Of course, things could change. I think that will translate into a bit more projects that get thought about this year, especially towards the end of the year. But a lot of that time, those things get kicked off in the following year. So a lot of our projects, you just don't wake up one day and say, hey, let me redo my drug safety system. Now, these are big projects. There's some change management and there's some thought into it. But overall, I like the feeling that I feel from the industry right now.

Very helpful. Thanks, guys.

Thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of Ken Wong with Oppenheimer. Please go ahead.

That's fantastic. The first question for you, Brent. As I think about the outlook, you have solid teens growth on subscription and billing. I couldn't help but notice you mentioned being a little more prudent with the outlook which I think is language you guys haven't used in the past. So I guess I would love to get a sense as we think about the guide, are you baking in additional cushion? Is it just kind of thinking about when the progression of the demand might come back through the year? Would love any additional color you can give on just how you're thinking about the makeup of guidance?

Yes, Ken, overall, philosophically, there's no change to how we approach guidance. There's obviously a number of variables in play, whether it's the macro and the impact and how that's impacting our service or our subs business on billings; you've got things like duration and frequency. We kind of take a step back and look at all those variables, and we think we've taken a prudent approach holistically given the variables at hand. So not a fundamental change in how we guide.

Got it. Okay. Really appreciate that color. And then for Peter, on the EDC side, I feel like historically, you guys have talked about that end market through the lens of winning new trials and that being where maybe the opportunity set was. I couldn't help but notice in January you guys did a migration of a study portfolio for an enterprise customer. Like could we possibly see the installed base as a potential opportunity going forward based on what you saw with that migration?

Let's see. How to think about that. On the EDC, when we sell EDC field, there's really two types. One would be an enterprise deal and that's where we agree, hey, it's a long-term, it's enterprise agreements that will ramp over time. Over time, you'll run all your studies on Veeva. That doesn't— the revenue for that doesn't change based on how fast they ramp or whether they migrate or whether they don't migrate. Then we have other ones which are study-by-study costs where sometimes it's with a CRO or a small biotech; they may be only running one or two or three studies, and we may compete for that study and win that study. The migration really won't impact our revenue directly at all. What it is, is a customer signs up for an enterprise agreement with ours, and they're rolling out and they're quite comfortable with Veeva. They might get to a point where they have 20, 30 studies that will run for a long time, and they want to clean up their IT environment, and they want to have a consistent clinical research site experience. They use our migration tools to clean that up rather than having some straggling studies on the legacy technology for honestly, what could be three, four, five years. That gets brittle; who knows what could happen with that straggling vendor, whether it has a downtime or a security patch needs to be put on, or whatever it is. It's just not clean. That migration capability translates into an advantage in our enterprise sales because we have that capability, and nobody else really has that capability. It would only have an effect there. It doesn't really affect the small market where we're competing study by study.

Perfect. Thank you, Peter.

Thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of Brian Peterson with Raymond James. Please go ahead.

Thanks and congrats on the strong wins this quarter. There's been some mention in the past about some customers looking to take large bites of the apple and buying several products at once. We obviously heard a lot about wins across multiple product areas this quarter. I'm curious, are those concentrated with a few customers like the one with BI? Or is it much more diversified across the customer base? Any color there?

I guess I can take that one. I would say this is diversified, more diversified. We had some quality wins, and those were with certain customers. We had a big clinical operations win for multiple clinical operations products. That was with a customer in Europe. We have a couple of EDC of top 20, and those were actually with different customers. So, no, it's spread all around, I think, it's the best way to say it, both in the US and Europe and just different customers.

That's great to hear. And Brent, maybe a follow-up. I know the cash balance continues to grow. How are you guys thinking about looking at capital deployment priorities over the next few years here? Thanks, guys.

Yes. Overall, Brian, continuing to our current capital allocation strategy, no change. We run a profitable business. We generate a lot of cash. So we are focused on M&A as a use of that cash. We are a disciplined company, and we'll take a disciplined approach to how we look at M&A. We do consider other uses of cash as a management leadership team, but our focus today is M&A.

Thanks, Brent.

Thanks, Brian.

Your next question comes from the line of Rishi Jaluria with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Wonderful. Thanks so much for taking my question. I wanted to first ask on AI and maybe ask in a little bit different way because I know it feels like you're planning your cards a little bit close to the chest on your own AI strategy. But I want to ask what are you seeing out of life sciences companies in terms of how AI has changed on things, whether that's accelerating drug development, whether that's more targeted marketing, maybe if you could walk us through kind of what those conversations would look like? And what sort of role you think you can play in those changes? Then I've got a quick follow-up.

Rishi, I would say the most direct impact, and it's been happening a while before large language models as well as AI and drug discovery. Very, very targeted AI models can do things like protein folding and analyzing retina images, things like that. This is very powerful, but very therapeutic area specific and very close to the science in the R&D. There's not just one AI model; there are multiple specialized AI models. So that's going on, and that will continue. I would say that's kind of part of the fabric of the industry now. Then in terms of other areas, there's a lot of experimentation with large language models. What people look at it for are a) Can I just have general productivity for my people? Can they write an email faster? Can they check their emails faster? Can they research some information faster? That's one thing that's going on. There are also specific use cases like authoring—can I author a protocol faster? Can I author a regulatory document faster? Now faster is one thing, but also, it has to be very accurate. I would say there's experimentation on that; there's not yet broad production use on that. Certainly, some of these critical things have to read a lot of quality control on them. So those are probably the two biggest use cases: really three—research, general productivity, and authoring. As far as our role, we've been doing some really heavy work over the last two years on something in our Vault platform called the Direct Data API. That's a pretty revolutionary way of making the data come out of the vault in a consistent—transactionally consistent manner, much, much faster, roughly 100 times faster than it happens now. That's going to be critical for all kinds of AI applications on top, which we may develop, which our customers may develop, and we're also utilizing that for some really fast system to system transfer between our different Vault family. That's been the biggest thing that we've done. We haven't really invested heavily in large language models; so far, we just don't see quite the application in our application areas—not to say that, that wouldn't change in the future. I would say we're in a pretty good position because AI really—the durable thing about AI is the data sources, the data sources. The AI models will come on top, and that will be largely a tech commodity, but the control and the access to the data sources is pretty important, and that's kind of where Veeva plays.

Yes. Got it. Okay. That's really helpful. And then you had your first full Vault Clinical Ops Suite customer in the deal, sorry, in the quarter; can you maybe talk about the uplift from eTMF to adopting the full suite, what that looks like and what you can do to maybe accelerate more of those types of wins? Thanks.

Yes. Now that's the specifics of that customer, of course, I won't go into the exact specifics here, but I can quickly give you my thoughts on it. I would say there that customer had eTMF, and that's one of our larger applications and has had for a number of years, fully deployed that one. When they got the other four applications in clinical operations, they more than tripled our opportunity, our end-state in clinical operations. So in that case. And I won't go into the exact numbers, but I know it's more than tripled. It's significant. Look at the CTMS, the clinical trial management system—that's a really important system study training, really important system for training thousands of research sites around the world and maintaining compliance and doing that in a friendly way. The payment processing—that's another thing that's key, the processing payments out to the clinical research sites. Then our product called Site Connect is about automating the information flow from the sites to the research—from the sites to the pharma company. During the startup, during the conduct of the study, and also critically at the end of the study, things that are called end-of-study media that need to get out to the site, and we're doing that in an automated way. There's a ton of value there that more than triples our value of eTMF.

Wonderful. Thank you.

I would say last comment, that customer won't always be like that where a customer says, hey, we just really want to modernize clinical operations, and we're looking to this partner to do it. We will do it in a holistic way over a number of years across a number of products. What's more common is there's a need in a certain area—the study training group has a need, hey, let's use Veeva or the payments group has a need, hey, let's use Veeva. That's still the more common use case.

Our next question will come from the line of Stan Berenshteyn with Wells Fargo Securities. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. So you rolled out Compass Prescriber Compass National. I realize it's still early, but can you share any anecdotes about customer reception, customer demand on those products?

Yes. It's very early. It's a good question, especially well, Compass patients, but especially prescriber and national—these are quite innovative products. It's going to take a while for customers to understand and adopt these. It's almost like going from the cloud from client-server to cloud. It's a different way of doing things. The reaction from the customers has, first, been for some, they're busy and they're not interested. For some, they are like, oh, I want to look into this. When they look into this, they say, wow, this is really different. They have to absorb that a little bit. This is really different, and then for some early adopters, they have jumped on like, wow, I can target physicians that I've never been able to target before. I can see data on my competitors' products that are administered in the medical setting, not a retail product, I can see that down to the ZIP code level and the HCP level. I can see things like unattributed scripts where the doctor is not specified, but they can see the health system. These are things that were just not possible before. It's going to take some time, and it's for early adopters which will generally come in innovative companies coming to market. They don't have any existing infrastructure and they're innovative-type people and hey, let's just go for that. Then we've had some brands in large companies that are small brands—pre-commercial brands are thinking, wow, I can—they have some freedom and latitude to go off and do what they do. They are getting this new data set; okay, we'll go for that. We're the hardest ones, and what just takes time—well, the big established brands, right? Because they have a motion, and it's going and it's working. They're very reticent to disrupt that because they have a limited patent life of these products, and they don't want to be risky in there. That's a little bit of color of what we're seeing.

That's very interesting. I appreciate that. Maybe as a follow-up, just sticking with the marketing team here. You called out strength in Crossix. It seems it's pretty broad-based on the prepared remarks. Is it just overall market growth? Or are you actually taking share as well here?

I believe we're taking share, yes. What's happened is we just continue to track record of customer success, just sort of grind it out—all the customers are successful with Crossix. Our data network for what we're doing there is the largest and most applicable. I think that brings some boom times. There was a little more experimentation with other areas. Some people got their fingers burned a little bit. I think that we haven't. We haven't burned anybody's fingers. Customer success leads the way. I think that's the main thing.

Your next question comes from the line of Brent Bracelin with Piper Sandler. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good afternoon. I was hoping to go back to the demand environment with a specific lens towards the SMB segment and then the top 50 enterprise segment. Can you maybe just compare, contrast what you're seeing in SMB? Are there any green shoots there or not? And then also compare that with the enterprise top 50 segments, what are you seeing there relative to this year versus last year? Thanks.

I'll take that one. This is Peter. The emerging biotechs, the small center of the segment is still a tough sliding there. This year, we saw a record number of companies get acquired and go out of business, and a small number of new companies were able to escape velocity because of the funding environment—it's tough, and it continues to be tough. You never know when it turns around until it turns around; all you know is that it hasn't turned around yet. In the top 50, I would say the feeling is just kind of a bit resigned that hey, we're in for this—there's some global conflicts, there's inflation, there's IRA Act, but that hasn't hurt us too bad yet, so we could just keep going. There's a renewed focus on execution and long-term execution. They are really seeing that's important. I think there's some excitement about the science—there are some really big brands now in the city area that didn't exist three, four years ago. That is renewing people's optimism like wow, the science will lead the way. It's different in the top 50 versus the emerging biotechs.

Helpful color there. And then my follow-up is back to M&A. And the question here is fiscal 2025 is going to be a very important year in that cash flow could exceed $1 billion for the first time. You have $4 billion in cash. Just thinking through the philosophy on M&A, historically, it's been around small technology tuck-ins; you're a much bigger business, you got a lot more cash flow generating coming in every year. Would you ever think about maybe larger bolt-on acquisition to go after a new area? Just thinking through M&A a little differently given the size of the business today and the outsized cash generation you're generating now as well?

Yes. I can talk to the general philosophy of M&A. I think it's no secret; I can just give you the formula. First of all, it has to make some business sense with the market. It has to be a market that we're interested to go in, either it's complementary or somewhat adjacent to what we're doing. That would be number one. It has to have a cultural fit with the company that you're considering acquiring because otherwise, it just will not work. 80% of acquisitions fail, but at Veeva, we have had all of our acquisitions succeed. It's this discipline. The cultural fit is a real thing, and it's an indicator of many things. Not that our culture is the best culture or whatever, but a company that doesn't fit with our culture will not be a successful acquisition. Thirdly, you need to have a very clear product and organizational structure plan that has been thought out ahead of time so that you could announce it to both teams from the day you would acquire them. If that doesn't happen, it's an indicator that you don't have enough bench strength to operate this thing. Therefore, you'll lose it in the integration or the business strategy isn't actually clear because you can't say it to people. I think those are the parameters. I don't think we would be limited by size. If we saw something that was right that hit those parameters, and that would cost us $3 billion, we would go for that. But the other thing you need is you need a willing seller. So it's a timing of it. 80% of acquisitions fail because people rush in and they buy things that don't fit these parameters. We're just not going to do that. I would rather return money to shareholders than waste it on a failed acquisition.

Makes sense. Helpful color. Thank you.

Thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of Jack Wallace with Guggenheim Securities. Please go ahead.

Hey, thanks for taking the questions. Just wanted to go back to the guide and it seems like there's been a lot of big momentum coming into the year. We've got some price increases. We've got some ramping deals. I think the pipeline is healthy of ruling buyers, timings made a little bit of a question mark. I don't want to belabor the term prudent here, but it does feel like there's more sources of potential upside in a higher floor of, whether it's billings or subscription revenue that kind of media had coming into the year, and that it's just a matter of grinding out a handful of strategic wins in order to how to get to the high end or get above the guidance range. Am I thinking about that correctly?

Yes. What I would say is I wouldn't interpret the choice of words of prudent as there's this incremental level of conservatism that's baked into the guide. I guess I would start there. We've considered all the factors that we've talked about on the call today. And we've considered those, and we think we have a guide that's reflective of the best calls on the numbers, as we have historically. I would think of it that way. There are a number of items to contemplate in the services portion of the business, which can be a little bit lumpy at that business. Overall, we feel really good and have conviction on the numbers we provided.

That's helpful. And then just on the 1Q guidance, was there any lingering impact from rep reductions that over the last couple of years just impacting 1Q? And then just on the—I think the third one here, the services. Just seems like you're taking a more aggressive approach there. I'm just wondering how much kind of automation potential that plays to help improve the CRM migrations? Thank you.

I can take the first portion of that on the—on your question around rep reductions. The digital portion of those rep reductions—that's largely behind us. So there's I wouldn't think of that as an incremental headwind as you look at fiscal year '25.

Got it. Thank you.

Okay.

Your next question comes from the line of Karl Keirstead with UBS. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Brent. Could we talk about your decision to raise the operating income guidance for fiscal '25? To me, that's meaningful—a number of software companies seem to be going the other way where, against the backdrop of needing to lean into R&D, invest in AI, they're posting somewhat shinier margin upside. But you've raised it to a pretty high 30s level. Can you talk about your calculus there?

Yes, I'm happy to. So maybe just first taking a big step back, so we provided a $1 billion plus guide about a year ago, which is a bit not typical, and we wanted to provide some context around the TFC standardization. You fast forward 12 months, and from that, we've been executing well, right? We've been executing over the past year. The 39% reflects that, and that reflects our operating model and the efficiency and effectiveness we get out of our operating model, and also the power and efficiency of the Vault platform. It really comes down to that. We're making the investments we see are necessary to drive customer success and growth. We're not shortchanging those. But overall, it's just about execution.

And Brent, maybe as my follow-up—I'm sorry, are we going to say something?

Yes, I would just say we're—as we scale, I think we're getting a little more efficient, getting more efficient in our processes, in our customer relationships, and our use of our Vault platform, and we're being diligent. That was a concept we call lean teams—not doing layoffs, but we want lean teams. We want the smallest teams possible with high-performance people that could perform well together. This kind of discipline is why our margins are increasing. You'll see that from us—increasing margins over time.

Got it. Okay. Helpful. And then maybe as a follow-up, if we could just go back to the optimism comment. It sounds like both of you, Peter and Brent, are dissuading us from thinking that that increased optimism would have any real impact on revenues and billings this year? I think we're hearing that message. But if I could just press—why not, if your clients are getting a little more optimistic, could projects that might be stalled start to move forward, discretionary spend start to come back? Why not?

I think most of these things that we deal with—these are very little discretionary spend other than in services because we deal with these critical systems and complex systems, and they have more thinking time. They have more thinking time. So I just don't think it's stuff that would impact this year. Having said that, we don't know what's going to happen this year. We do live in some uncertain times. We have some interest rate things going on. We have two global conflicts going on. We have to factor that uncertainty. It's not a guarantee that in September, everything is going to be the same as it is right now.

Got it. Okay. Thanks for that color.

Okay.

Your next question comes from the line of Ryan MacDonald with Needham & Company. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. Maybe first to start out with CRM. I noticed the nine wins in the quarter with an even mix of five Vault and four Veeva CRM. Just curious what you're hearing in terms of the rationalization from customers on still selecting Veeva CRM. Is it something that they don't want to wait until April of '24 to be able to do so or anything like that? And then is there—is there contracting in a different way now for Veeva CRM versus Vault, whether it be duration or putting in commitments to migrate over to the new CRM? Just any color there would be helpful.

Yes, Ryan, I can take that. This is Paul. The conversations we have with all of these customers, it's a dialogue. We go in with full transparency. We talk about why they want to choose one or the other. We don't go in with a preconceived notion. We listen and talk to the customer. Based on what their requirements are, we guide them. We try to lead the customer and make sure we make the right decision. There may be reasons to do Veeva CRM that include some very specific features and functions that they really need early on that they want to start there with—that would be a common example of why they may choose Veeva CRM over Vault CRM. But those things are going away quickly. Just to give you perspective, we'll be at general availability in April. We're well on the way and on track for that, and full parity with everything in Veeva CRM will be in Vault CRM by the end of this year. So it's really a timing issue. Starting in April, everything will be Vault. We're comfortable and confident in that timeline and that milestone. That gives you some guidance there. In terms of how we're contracting, we're contracting in a very similar way. There's not really a material change. The licensing is not exactly the same, but it's very similar. Timing of contracts—it's pretty much all the same, annual deals that we do, and it's all per user base.

Super helpful. I appreciate that. Maybe a follow-up on the data strategy. Obviously, early days with the new prescriber national data available now. But one thing we've seen with other vendors in the data space is that there's this constant need for it, whether it be maintenance or additions to grow their data sets over time to remain competitive and maybe those are vendor-specific issues. But I'm curious, now that you've got prescriber and national rolled out in addition to patient, how you're thinking about that data expansion or acquisition strategy moving forward, whether that's organic or if you—and you license it from other sources or maybe M&A makes sense. Just curious how you're thinking about data expansion strategy moving forward.

In terms of data acquisition, yes, we make end data products that we sell to our customers. Of course, we buy data inputs, call it data acquisitions. We have a unique strategy as it relates to Compass, where we're really multi-sourcing. We're sourcing data from a lot of different sources, and we have an excellent industry-leading patient tokenization process that's kind of fundamentally different than the common one out there. When we do this, we can multisource from a lot of different places, bring it together and avoid duplicates. When we do that, we'll have more data sources than what's common, but no data source will be particularly extra critical to us. When we see a good deal for a data source and good terms—which means we can contract it for a number of years, and we know what the cost is, and it's not that expensive—we'll do that. If we see something that's not good, such as we don't have stability over multiple years or the cost is too high than we want to pay, then we just won't purchase that. You're not going to see anything dramatic from Veeva; there's no step function in cost or something like that. Very importantly for us, these data acquisitions power both our Crossix business and our Compass business. That's very different, right? With one set of data purchases, we're able to power two good-sized businesses. That lowers our percentage data cost.

Super helpful color. Thanks, Peter.

Your next question comes from the line of David Windley with Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good evening. Thanks for taking my question. Peter, does Annex 1 have any stimulative impact on your quality products, the need for your quality products? Does that regulation in Europe influence that at all?

I don't know that one. I probably—if I do some research, I can figure out what Annex 1 is, but we'll have to get back to you. We can get back to you offline, as long as it's not a material non-public thing. Sorry about that one. You stumped me on that one.

Well, I'm sorry, I did that, but I'll ask a different one instead. So on the data comments that you just made about your data sourcing strategy, does the breadth— I think I understood you to say that ability to be flexible allows you to buy when you see good deals. I was going to ask, does the breadth cause you to have to pay more money? Or does your operating expense base grow disproportionately because of the breadth of that data? Maybe the answer is the opposite.

I can only really comment on our strategy. I wouldn't really know exactly as it compares to others. We believe we have a lower overall data cost because of this. That's what we believe. Now, the main reason to do this is for data quality. If you're getting data from three different sources that are somewhat overlapping, you have a better chance of getting data quality. This is one of the reasons why we can project data for medical claims, which might be something that's done at an infusion center. We can also project something for something that you pick up at Walgreens or CVS. Why? Because we're sourcing data from multiple points along the line. The real benefit is a more holistic view of the patient; we can project data for over 4,000 brands. You can't do that if you're just projecting based on a few large retailers' data; you can't do that. If you look at 20 years ago or 25 when these legacy data products started, or even when Veeva started in 2007, the biggest brand at the time was Lipitor, and you've got Lipitor at the drugstore. The biggest brand now is KEYTRUDA, and you don't just walk into the drugstore and get that—it doesn't work that way, or HUMIRA, et cetera. Ours is a modern approach; I think it's the only way really to do it well for today's complex therapies. I do think we'll have lower data costs over time. I think, but I don't have proof of that.

Got it. And then a follow-up relatedly, and again not to ask a stumper, but this change health care cyber hack situation where some data is being held hostage in a fairly significant health care data switch, is that a situation that, say in the future when your products are more mature, actually feeds to the way that you're collecting data and makes you more reliable than maybe some others might be?

Yes. Now as it relates to change, I am—we're aware of that, of course, not the very specific details of the attack. I am aware of how the attack was made, but I'm not aware of what's going on inside the change. I'm not going to disclose whether we get data from them or not. The good thing is that happens for the health care system; most of the pharmacies are operating on relatively modern software such that they can point their software to different switches, and there are standards that are in play. So that's a good thing that the health care system can recover. For us, again, without going into a lot of details, whichever way the data gets routed, there's a real good chance we're going to pick it up because we're picking it up in multiple places along the way. I'm not—even if we were at scale in our business, I think it's certainly unfortunate what happened with change; I think it's terrible what's going on with the cyber attacks, but it wouldn't affect our Compass or Crossix business.

Yeah, I appreciate you taking my questions. Great. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next question will come from the line of Craig Hettenbach with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Thank you. A follow-up question for Brent on the margin. Nice to see the strong guidance on fiscal '25. Can you just touch on—there's some element of services OpEx coming down. Is this—do you think a new run rate beyond '25? Or is there normalization when you think about margin after this year?

Yes. I would say overall, the margin uplift we're seeing isn't really driven by services. I would say it's really more broad. It's broadly how we're executing, and that's how we leverage again our operating model, thinking about lean teams and really disciplined hiring broadly. We feel good about how we've executed there. That's basically what's informed our guide for the full fiscal year. I'm not going to talk beyond fiscal year '25 at this point in time, but we feel good about our ability to hit those operating income and our margin targets.

Got it. And then just a follow-up for Peter. Just on the momentum you're seeing in EDC wins. Can you touch on what you think is resonating most with new customers and then just key differentiating factors versus competitive offerings?

Well, as we get into this middle part of the market, I think a required thing would be positive customer references, right? If our existing customers weren't happy and productive, these current sales would not be happening because it is very easy for them to reach out to their peers and get a very authentic, hey, you're using Veeva today, how are you feeling about that? Our customer success is leading the way. In terms of capabilities, it's agile study build to be able to build a complex study that has multiple arms quicker and more reliably—that's a big benefit. I would say the sort of what I would say, no coding. A lot of the existing—at least a couple of the existing providers actually end up doing a lot of coding, actual coding work when you build a study. That is interesting for whoever is coding that study, but it's a bit of a headache for the people managing the study because when you have coding, it's hard to keep that under control, and the complexity grows, and there can be errors and unforeseen things. With Veeva, you don't do custom coding. I would say the other one is people want a clinical platform, and that is clinical operations and clinical data management. That's not something you can get from the existing leaders in the clinical data management area. That then the customer has to develop a common data architecture between their clinical operations and their clinical data management from two different vendors. They have to develop the integrations. They have to keep those integrations running as both products change. That's a headache that people don't want to deal with. I would say it's those things that are contributing. You might ask, well, how come everybody is not buying it all today? Well, customers have priorities, and this is changing a very, very critical system. You better have a good reason to do it. You don't do it unless you have pain in that area, and not all customers have pain all at the same time.

Helpful. Thank you.

Thanks.

Your final question comes from the line of Anne Samuel with JPMorgan. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thanks for taking the question. I was hoping to go back to the earlier question around optimism. We've heard from some others in the industry that the annual budget flush did happen to some extent late in the quarter. Just curious, did you see that at all? Any other notable green shoots that you can point to that are driving your comments around optimism in the space? Thanks.

I guess I can take that one. For the budget flush, we don't really see that too much because ours are more critical and complex things, not so much discretionary. We just don't see it as much. That may have happened; we just don't see it as much. In terms of the optimism overall, I want everybody to be clear, this is based on a feeling and intuition based on lots of discussions. We have deep relationships with the customers because we have big strategic partnerships. I can't calculate that down into science. You know it when you feel it, and we feel it, but there's no—you can't really quantify that.

Thanks very much.

Thank you.

I'll now hand the call back to Peter Gassner for any closing remarks.

First off, thanks to everybody who asked these really thoughtful and insightful questions; thanks for your interest in Veeva and your understanding of Veeva. Good questions help everybody have more clarity. I really appreciate that. I would like to close by thanking our customers for their trust and partnership and the Veeva team for all the work in the year that I believe will have a major impact on the industry and drive our growth for years to come. Thank you.