UPST vs PATH

-
Comparing Revenue Robustness: UiPath (PATH) vs. Upstart (UPST)

Comparing Revenue Robustness: UiPath (PATH) vs. Upstart (UPST)

To determine which company, UiPath (PATH) or Upstart (UPST), has a more robust revenue source, we compare their revenue models, growth trends, customer bases, and resilience to market conditions. A "robust" revenue source implies consistency, scalability, diversification, and stability. This analysis uses data up to April 12, 2025.

UiPath (PATH) Revenue Overview

Business Model and Revenue Sources

  • Core Offering: AI-powered Robotic Process Automation (RPA) platform automating repetitive tasks across industries (finance, healthcare, retail, manufacturing).
  • Revenue Streams:
    • Subscription Services (~50%): Recurring revenue from SaaS (Automation Cloud) and maintenance/support. ~$649.92M in FY2023[1].
    • Licenses (~47%): Term-based licenses for bots and platform components (e.g., Studio, Orchestrator). ~$580M in ARR previously[2].
    • Professional Services (~3%): Consulting, training, implementation.
  • Customer Base: 11,350+ customers, including 80% of Fortune 10 and 61% of Fortune Global 500[3].
  • Key Metrics (FY2025, ending Jan 31, 2025):
    • Total Revenue: $1.43B, +9.3% YoY (TTM)[4].
    • Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR): $1.666B, +14% YoY (Q4 FY2025)[4].
    • Dollar-Based Net Retention Rate: 110% (Q4 FY2025)[4].
  • Market Opportunity: $60B addressable market for automation, driven by AI adoption[3].
  • Resilience: Subscription-heavy model ensures predictable cash flow, diversified across industries.

Strengths

  • Recurring Revenue: ~50% subscriptions provide stability.
  • Enterprise Focus: Long-term contracts with large clients.
  • Global Reach: 48 locations, diverse markets.
  • Innovation: AI investments (e.g., Peak AI acquisition 2025)[5] and partnerships (SAP, Deloitte).

Weaknesses

  • Growth Slowdown: 9.3% YoY growth (vs. 23.57% FY2024) due to deal scrutiny[4].
  • Profitability: GAAP losses (-$165M FY2024), though non-GAAP profitable[1].
  • Stock Volatility: $10.87 (Apr 11, 2025), down from $39.61 peak[6].

Upstart (UPST) Revenue Overview

Business Model and Revenue Sources

  • Core Offering: AI-driven lending marketplace for personal, auto, and small business loans, connecting borrowers with banks/credit unions.
  • Revenue Streams:
    • Platform/Referral Fees (~90%): 3–6% of loan value per origination[7].
    • Servicing/Other Fees: Loan management post-origination.
    • Interest Income: Minor, from holding some loans.
  • Customer Base: ~100 lenders (e.g., Cross River Bank), millions of borrowers[8].
  • Key Metrics (Q4 2024, TTM estimates):
    • Total Revenue: ~$579M, ~-3% YoY[9].
    • Q3 2024 Revenue: $162M, +28% YoY[10].
    • Loan Origination Volume: $1.8B (Q3 2024), +34% YoY[10].
    • Net Loss: ~$54M (Q3 2024), improved from $60M (Q3 2023)[10].
  • Market Opportunity: $4T U.S. consumer lending market[8].
  • Resilience: Revenue tied to loan volumes, sensitive to interest rates and economic conditions.

Strengths

  • AI Differentiation: 44% more loan approvals vs. traditional models[8].
  • Scalability: Platform scales with loan volume, low capital needs.
  • Recent Recovery: Q3 2024 +28% revenue growth[10].
  • Stock Momentum: $38.99 (Apr 11, 2025), up from $13.22 low[11].

Weaknesses

  • Cyclicality: Revenue drops during rate hikes (2022–2023)[9].
  • Concentration Risk: Relies on key lenders like Cross River Bank[8].
  • Profitability: Persistent losses (~$180M TTM est.)[9].
  • Volatility: Stock swings ($96.43 high, $20.60 low)[11].

Revenue Comparison

Metric UiPath (PATH) Upstart (UPST)
TTM Revenue (2025) $1.43B (+9.3% YoY)[4] ~$579M (~3% YoY decline, est.)[9]
Primary Revenue Source Subscriptions (50%), Licenses (47%)[1] Platform/Referral Fees (~90%)[7]
Recurring Revenue High (~50% subscriptions, stable ARR)[1] Moderate (servicing fees, volume-driven)[7]
Customer Base 11,350+ enterprises, diversified[3] ~100 lenders, millions of borrowers[8]
Industry Diversification Broad (finance, healthcare, retail, etc.) Narrow (consumer lending)[8]
Growth Stability Steady, slowing (9.3% vs. 23.57%)[4] Volatile (28% Q3 growth, prior declines)[10]
Economic Sensitivity Moderate (deal scrutiny in downturns)[4] High (tied to rates, loan demand)[9]
Profitability Non-GAAP profitable, GAAP losses[1] Net losses, improving[9]
Market Cap (Apr 11, 2025) $5.99B[6] $3.71B[11]

Which Has a More Robust Revenue Source?

UiPath (PATH) has a more robust revenue source due to:

  1. Recurring Revenue Stability:
    • 50% subscription revenue and $1.666B ARR (+14%) ensure predictability[4].
    • Upstart’s transactional fees (loan originations) fluctuate with economic cycles[7].
  2. Diversified Customer Base:
    • 11,350+ enterprise clients across industries reduce sector reliance[3].
    • Upstart’s ~100 lenders and borrower-driven model are less diversified[8].
  3. Industry Resilience:
    • Automation is critical for efficiency in all economic conditions, with steady 9.3% growth[4].
    • Upstart’s revenue crashed in 2022–2023, with Q3 2024 recovery (28%) vulnerable to rate changes[10].
  4. Scalability and Market Opportunity:
    • $60B automation market with flexible deployment (cloud, on-premises)[3].
    • $4T lending market is large, but Upstart’s niche faces competition[8].
  5. Financial Metrics:
    • UiPath’s $1.43B revenue is ~2.5x Upstart’s $579M, with consistent growth[4][9].
    • Upstart’s negative TTM growth and lack of ARR-like metrics signal less predictability[9].

Upstart’s Case

  • Q3 2024’s 28% revenue growth and 34% origination increase show recovery[10].
  • Platform scales efficiently, but volatility and macro dependence limit robustness[9].

Risks

  • UiPath: Slowing ARR growth (14% vs. 21% Q1 FY2025), longer sales cycles[4].
  • Upstart: Losses and sensitivity to rate hikes could disrupt recovery[9].

Conclusion

UiPath (PATH) has a more robust revenue source due to its subscription-driven model, diversified enterprise base, consistent growth, and lower economic sensitivity. Its $1.43B revenue and $1.666B ARR provide stability, despite slower growth[4]. Upstart’s revenue, while rebounding, is volatile and tied to loan volumes, lacking UiPath’s predictability[9]. For revenue stability, UiPath is stronger as of April 12, 2025.

References

댓글

댓글 쓰기

이 블로그의 인기 게시물

WACC 분석 CEG vs VST

-
콘스텔레이션 에너지(CEG)와 비스트라 에너지(VST)의 WACC 비교 분석 콘스텔레이션 에너지(CEG)와 비스트라 에너지(VST)의 WACC 비교 분석 콘스텔레이션 에너지(CEG)와 비스트라 에너지(VST)의 가중평균자본비용(WACC)을 비교 분석하려면, 각 회사의 자본 구조, 부채 비용, 자본 비용, 세율 등을 고려해야 합니다. WACC는 기업이 자본을 조달하는 데 드는 평균 비용을 나타내며, 주로 할인된 현금흐름(DCF) 분석에서 할인율로 사용됩니다. 아래는 두 회사의 WACC를 비교 분석한 내용으로, 최신 재무 데이터에 대한 접근이 제한적이므로 추정치를 기반으로 계산되었습니다. 1. WACC 계산 공식 WACC는 다음과 같은 공식으로 계산됩니다: \[ \text{WACC} = \left( \frac{E}{V} \cdot R_e \right) + \left( \frac{D}{V} \cdot R_d \cdot (1 - T_c) \right) \] \( E \): 자본(Equity)의 시장 가치 \( D \): 부채(Debt)의 시장 가치 \( V \): 총 자본 가치 (\( E + D \)) \( R_e \): 자본 비용 (Cost of Equity) \( R_d \): 부채 비용 (Cost of Debt) \( T_c \): 법인세율 (Corporate Tax Rate) 2. 기업 개요 콘스텔레이션 에너지(CEG) : 미국 최대의 탄소 배출 없는 에너지 생산 기업으로, 주로 원자력과 재생 가능 에너지를 통해 전력을 공급합니...
자세한 내용 보기

2025 QT and 2026 전망.

-
이미지
Federal Reserve's official trends 를 보자. page:  https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm  – Features multiple charts, including total assets, selected assets (e.g., Treasuries and MBS), and liquidity facilities. Shows QT progress with weekly updates. FRED (St. Louis Fed):  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL  – Interactive chart of the Fed's total assets (weekly levels), clearly showing the peak during QE and declines during QT (e.g., from ~$9 trillion in 2022 to $6.64 trillion as of August 13, 2025). 12월 양적긴축을 줄이겠다고 발표한 이후로 다시 올라오고 있으나 아직 25년도 7월 수준이다. 그래도 여전히 2019년에 비교하면 높은 수준이다.   기존 히스토리:  MacroMicro:  https://en.macromicro.me/collections/51/us-treasury-bond/4458/us-treasury-issuance-gross  – Charts gross issuance of T-bills (short-term), notes, and bonds, with breakdowns (e.g., latest for July 2025 매달 업데이트American Action Forum Tracker:  https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/tracker-the-federal-reserves...
자세한 내용 보기

TCPC vs GBDC

-
2025년 및 2026년 TCPC vs. GBDC 비교 2025년 및 2026년 TCPC vs. GBDC 비교 2025년 비교 1. 재무 성과 및 포트폴리오 TCPC : NII $0.36/주, ROE 15.4%, $4,100만 손실로 NAV $9.18. $18억, 146개 기업, 90% 선순위(94% 변동금리), 비수익 자산 4.4%(원가 12.6%). GBDC : EPS $0.46, ROE 12%, 운영 마진 51.2%. $22억 시총, 143개 기업, 90%+ 선순위(66% 변동금리), 비수익 자산 낮음. 2. 배당 및 수익률 TCPC : 배당 $0.25/주 + $0.02~$0.04 특별 배당, 수익률 17.26%, 커버리지 83.2%. 관리 수수료 면제. GBDC : 수익률 10~12%, 안정적 커버리지. 3. 시장 환경 및 기회 TCPC : BlackRock HPS 인수로 딜 플로우 강화, 기술/헬스케어 대출. 아마존 애그리게이터 리스크. GBDC : 사모펀드 후원 대출, 헬스케어/IT 중심, 신용 품질 안정. 공통 : 금리 5.9%~6.0%, 프라이빗 크레딧 수요 증가. 4. 리스크 TCPC : 2025년 $1억 1,230만 만기, 비수익 자산, 트럼프 정책 영향. GBDC : 금리 상승 시 수익률 제한, 시장 변동성 4.38%. 2026년 비교 1. 재무 및 포트폴리오 TCPC : $3억 4,720만 만기 재융자, 비수익 자산 감소(4.1%), EPS $1.48. 기술/헬스케어 성장. GBDC : 안정적 신용 품질, EPS $1.60, 사모...
자세한 내용 보기