Hello everyone. Thank you for joining us and welcome to Tempest Q3 2026 Financial Results Call. After today's prepared remarks, we will host a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 to raise your hand. To withdraw your question, press star 1 again. I will now hand the conference over to Kendra Webster, VP of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Matt. Good morning and welcome to Tempest's third quarter 2026 conference call. This morning, Tempest released results for the quarter ended September 30th, 2026. The press release, overview of the quarter, and our latest presentation are available on our IR website at investors.tempest.com. Joining me today are Eric Lefkofsky, founder and CEO of Tempest, and Jim Rogers, CFO. Before we begin, I would like to remind you that during this call, management will be making 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 refer to our 10-K and other subsequent filings 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 earnings release, which is available on our IR page. I will now turn the call over to Eric.

Q3 was an incredibly strong quarter for Tempus, with broad-based growth across both our diagnostics and data and applications businesses. Momentum from the first half of 2026 carried into the third quarter, with total revenue of $411.5 million, increasing 23% year over year, led by accelerating unit growth of 32% in our oncology business and increasing momentum of 33% revenue growth in data and apps. Our diagnostics business delivered $303.5 million of revenue, an increase of 20% year over year, driven by oncology revenues, which grew 28%, with volume growth of 32%, as we continue to see some of the strongest unit volume growth we have seen in years. Oncology revenues were $172.6 million, and hereditary cancer testing revenues were $111.3 million. Data and apps revenues were $108.1 million, increasing 33% year over year as that business continues to outperform, led by Insights, our data licensing segment, which grew 29%. These results reinforce the durability of our model as our best-in-class diagnostic platform, enhances our data and AI offerings, distinguishes our business from our many competitors, and helps drive the performance we have delivered consistently quarter after quarter. There were also several notable highlights since our last quarterly call. We entered into a strategic collaboration with Bristol-Myers Squibb, or BMS, whereby we agreed to license BMS oncology data and models for up to $137.5 million over a five-year term. Additionally, BMS, Pathos, and Tempus have entered into a collaboration to build datasets and models for Alzheimer's disease. Through this collaboration, Pathos is paying Tempus $55 million over a five-year term. As a result, over the next approximately five years, we expect to generate $192.5 million of additional data and applications revenue from these agreements alone. This is one of our largest strategic collaborations to date, and it's nice to see BMS join the likes of AstraZeneca, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and BioNTech. As I've said before, if we sign just one of these big collaborations, we would be content. We've signed three this year alone. We announced a multi-year strategic collaboration with Moderna and Merck to support the potential commercialization of their novel, first-in-class individualized neoantigen therapy, or INT, being evaluated in combination with Keytruda in patients with completed resected stage 2 beta-4 melanoma and other cancer types. Given the exceptional response of the clinical trial data so far and the potential for this drug to be transformational, we are excited by the future of this program and thrilled to be partnering with Moderna and Merck. Thank you. MRD represents an estimated $20-plus billion market and is one of the fastest-growing segments in oncology diagnostics. It is transformative for cancer care, allowing clinicians to detect disease recurrence earlier than traditional imaging, enabling more informed treatment decisions when cancer recurs. Bringing Personalis' testing portfolio under one roof will accelerate commercial adoption, round out our overall portfolio, and strengthen the multimodal data flywheel that continues to differentiate our business. We generated $25.6 million in adjusted EBITDA and ended the quarter with $854.4 million in cash and marketable securities. We had long suspected that with gross profit dollar growth outpacing our investments, we would eventually turn the corner and be able to generate meaningful EBITDA. This quarter, we made the turn. Despite our increasing investments in diagnostics, we have always been a tech company. Our entire business model was built around the idea of collecting vast amounts of real-time, multimodal, de-identified data to both improve clinical decisions and enhance research. A decade later, those efforts have allowed us to amass more than 600 petabytes of rich data, adding more than 50 petabytes last quarter alone, along with the technology infrastructure that is connected to approximately 8,000 providers, enabling us to use that data to train models and generate insights. The scale of our business and the breadth of our portfolio has allowed us to build a significant data moat. By compounding a decade of investment in our AI capabilities, we deliver solutions that grow more powerful with every patient touchpoint, cementing our position as an indispensable engine for healthcare innovation. As the world gets hungrier for the benefits AI can deliver, namely allowing people to live longer and healthier lives, Tempus is uniquely positioned as we have strategically amassed the data needed to power these models and the distribution platform to deliver them to patients. as a result of our financial performance this quarter we are increasing guidance to 1.60 to 1.605 billion dollars in 2026. we continue to expect 2026 adjusted EBITDA to be approximately 65 million dollars and with that we will open it up to questions

We will now begin the question and answer session. Please limit yourself to one question. If you'd like to ask a question, please press star one to raise your hand. To withdraw your question, press star one again. We ask that you pick up your handset when asking a question to allow for optimum sound quality. If you are muted locally, please remember to unmute your device. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from the line of Kyle Mixon with Canaccord Genuity. Kyle, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. Thanks for the questions. Congrats on the quarter. So one question on hereditary. You're hoping that returns to stable growth next year, but just given these proposed clinical outfeed schedule rates that factor in PAMA cuts, I'm just wondering how you're thinking about potential headwinds there. given and then obviously you have ASV tailwinds on the oncology side. So maybe just talk about diagnostics outlook for 27.

Yeah, I can start. So I think the overall hereditary business seems to be poised to do, you know, kind of much better as we move forward than it has over the last few quarters in large part because it's both lapping excessive growth last year which we've talked about relative to the some of the market dynamics where you had a big player in the market that was having some financial issues a bunch of volume moved over and so instead of kind of nice even you know whatever near 15% growth year after year you have this like jump up to you know 30% growth that we're now lapping. We've seen some good sign of that in September and October where unit growth rates have returned to low double digits. So we feel overall like that business is moving in a better direction. And whatever macro headwind there is in terms of guidance is kind of small compared to the just massive unaddressed TAM relative to the fact that current guidelines and current reimbursement would cover about 70 million lives and we run something like 2 million tests a year. So I think we still have a very under-penetrated market. I suspect as more and more literature comes out finding clear links between germline variants and diseases that can be prevented or managed earlier, you'll see this category continue to be stable and grow. And Jim can cover ASPs on the oncology side.

Yeah, so on ASPs for hereditary, just as a reminder, obviously hereditary cancer makes up the majority of that revenue, but we do have a small but growing rare business. And so, you know, we don't anticipate material impacts from PAMA on the hereditary cancer Thank you for joining us. Given the expansion of our FDA approval to include kind of tumor only for our XT test, that updated pricing will kick in on January 1st and allow us to move the remaining XT volume over. That gives us about $80 million of uplift in oncology ASP in 2027. And then we still have XF kind of going through the FDA process. And once that kind of finalizes that process and hopefully gets approved, then there'll be even a larger increase as we migrate XF to the FDA approved version of the assay. So lots of tailwind from ASP expected on the oncology side beginning early in 27 and we don't anticipate much impact on the hereditary ASP.

Perfect, thanks guys. Your next question comes from the line of Sarah James with Cantor Fitzgerald. Sarah, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Thank you. I was hoping you could talk a little bit about the headwinds and tailwinds in 27. So can we assume if CGP volume holds in the low 20s and DNA might be closer to 30 than 25, you've still got the incremental gross profit, two-thirds of it, even after personalis being reinvested. can we get to the 25% long-term range and thinking out further once we get the benefit of XT and XF uplift, could 28 be a year above that 25% Keger?

Yeah, I mean, I think, so first of all, we feel like a business at our size growing at 25% a year over a long-term is incredibly healthy. We've always said we're more interested in long-term 25% growth than we are in kind of short-term 30% growth that then decelerates. When you talk about a business that's going to do a few billion dollars in revenue that's growing at 25%, that means literally every year you're adding 500 million or more of new revenue, and then that becomes a billion of new revenue and more and more. So we're into the law of large numbers. We're fortunate that our two main businesses and many more. Later part of the year, you'll have FDA approval where you're going to get an even bigger step up. So we've got really strong unit growth, rising ASPs and our data business is performing even better in the aggregate at about 33% growth. And obviously we've announced a string of very big deals with Merck and BioNTech and now BMS. And so it's really the core businesses are super strong. but you know we have other businesses like Hereditary growing slower and so in the aggregate we feel like this kind of 25 plus percent growth rate is achievable and achievable long term. Is it possible that you get into 27 or 28 and have moments where the business is growing significantly faster either because of ASP lift or because the data business just is running really hot?

Yes.

But even if it is, even if we deliver a quarter where the aggregate growth is materially higher, I will say the same thing, which is it's great. I'm glad. But at the end of the day, if you can sustain kind of 25% growth over a decade, over another decade, you will build a really large business. And we think we're building a really large business.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Mark Massaro with BTIG. Mark, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. Thank you for taking the questions. Nice continued growth in MRD. You know, you're tracking about 3,000 units per quarter. Recognizing that only 15% of your sales force is selling today, and the shareholder meeting is sort of around the corner after Thanksgiving, Can you just give us a sense for, you know, once personality is in your portfolio, to what extent you plan to ungate and let the remaining 85% of reps sell the test? Is that something that we could expect in the first half of 2027? Or is that, are there other criteria you need to see later in the year?

I think it's going to be largely a function of, it's more a function of reimbursement than it is a function of closing the deal. We have to be sensitive that at the present moment when personnel runs these tests, they lose money. And once we acquire them, we'll be in the same boat. Granted, we are in this really nice place where given the three categories they've got reimbursement for in 2026, they're in this rising ASP landscape where They're getting much closer to being breakeven on an individual test basis. And we think with some of the approvals coming, obviously, you know, in categories like colorectal cancer, we think we will turn that corner where on a per test basis, they're generating, you know, basically positive gross profit. That's a big unlock to really ramp up. Now, that said, we're still ramping now. We're adding sales members to our team in the aggregate across all of our different assay categories. And we will, you know, in 27 dial up MRD in sales efforts. But the big unlock, which I suspect will be, I don't know, it could be mid-year, it could be Q2, it could be Q3, who knows. But somewhere, I suspect mid-year, you'll be in this boat where they will turn the corner and be kind of positive, it was profit dollar contribution on a per test basis. And then we'll feel much better about really starting to put the pedal to the metal. So I think over the latter half of 27 into 28, I would suspect growth will continue to be really strong.

Great. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Bradley Bowers with Mizuho. Bradley, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hey there. Thank you. Just wanted to maybe ask another one on MRD while we're here, you know, definitely understand the timing with respect to, you know, how much you're getting paid per test and colorectal is a big unlock. What do you think about the competitive landscape that you're launching into? You know, obviously, Tempus has a lot of things that it offers the physicians that would allow the test to win kind of at the physician level, but maybe just wanted to hear about the MRD offering kind of as it's fully rolled into Tempest and how that compares to competition and how we can maybe think about market share expectations for the test. Thank you.

Yeah, so I'll jump in. So the assay, first of all, is best in class. I mean, in terms of its performance, It performs as well as any assay out there. Obviously, we take a better, but it's a super well-performing assay. So we're never meeting with oncologists, whether it's academic medical center or community practitioners who are saying, God, I just wish you had a better test. They love the test. So the real unlock to volume is just that the full Tempest sales machine is kind of unlocked to sell MRD at scale. And that, again, is a function of, do you have unit economics that support that? And we're getting very close. I think once that's in place, the same benefits that drive our CGP business, which is this kind of best-in-class technology stack, deep integration to thousands of hospitals, a broad compendium of tests that all are interconnected to clinical insights and algorithmic diagnostics that all just literally feeds perfectly into MRD. And our clients, our physicians are interested in us offering more and more, more broadly. And so I think there's really no competitive impediment to us getting to real scale. And I would suspect, I think I've said this before, that at the end of the day, what Tempest has done that's, I think, unique is no other company like ours is number one or number two in more than one category. We are number one or number two in solid. We are number one or number two in liquid. We are obviously number one or number two in hereditary cancer profiling. And we will be number one or number two in MRD, I think. There's just no reason for me to believe that that market won't evolve the same way. When we entered solid tumor profiling, foundation medicine was every bit the kind of Goliath that Natera is today and the same thing in liquid. So I suspect we will do quite well in MRD because we wrap all this technology and all this AI and all this contextualization around these tests and we just become a test of preference for our physicians.

Thank you.

Your next caller comes from the line of Ryan McDonald with Needham. Ryan, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Thanks for taking my questions and congrats on a nice quarter. Eric and Jim, maybe to talk about the success you're seeing in the data business. Obviously, amazing year so far with over $550 million of bookings throughout the year. I guess as you look at sort of maybe the state of the pipeline and maybe the seasonality of the business and sort of demand cycle. Are you seeing any changes in terms of pull forward of demand? And then as we think about sort of the components of the pipeline, what's the mix that you're seeing sort of within oncology, neuro, cardiology, some of the other areas? And Jim, how does this sort of make you feel about the level of visibility going into 2027 to sort of hit those 25% to 30% targets that you're looking for in the business? Thanks.

Yeah, I mean, I'd say that, you know, the pipeline, we've been talking about this now for several quarters, I'd say kind of towards the tail end of last year, we saw kind of an uptick in engagement with our biopharma partners. We started kind of commenting on it then, and I think you kind of see it playing out in the deals that we've announced thus far this year. And the beauty of these deals are, you know, as we kind of and many more. under contract for kind of five, six years, very long-term deals that give us that visibility. And so as we enter 27, we feel like we're in a really strong position to see that growth, not only in 27, but 28 and 29 as well.

Yeah, and I'll just jump in. I mean, I think the nice part about the data business that we've been able to build is is, you know, we used to, our business, you know, four or five years ago was much more lumpy and episodic in terms of the way we did these deals. But over the last, you know, half a decade, we've really migrated people to long-term subscriptions where people are basically connecting to our lens platform. They have access to the totality of our data. They're able to, based on the level of subscription they sign up for, pick a certain number of files that they can download annually. and do work with more and more, as we've mentioned, they're now connecting that data to kind of private GPU clusters that we set up for them where they can build models that they can keep in our environment to basically do a bunch of their AI modeling work. And so it just, it becomes much smoother, long-term sticky. And so it's nice to kind of be going into, we'll be going into 2027 in like the strongest position we've been in for a long time. We said that same thing going into 26.

And one more thing that I'd add is, you know, one of the exciting things about the BMS collaboration is the work that we're doing in Alzheimer's. You know, we've long talked about kind of expanding beyond oncology, although oncology drove, you know, most of the revenue to date. But the data sets that we've invested in over the last 10 years expand well beyond oncology and other disease areas. And seeing that demand pick up and expand beyond oncology is something we're really, really excited

Your next question comes from the line of Evie Koslowski with Goldman Sachs. Evie, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Great. Thanks so much for taking my questions. So given this strength, I think you mentioned in the AI modeling portion of the insights business, how does this change the stickiness of the relationships with your customers and then maybe touch on what percentage of the insights data customers also utilize AI modeling and then how you expect this to evolve into next year?

I think the stickiness is essentially a function of how we've designed the data business. So as I mentioned a second ago, if you go back, we started licensing data maybe roughly six or seven years ago, something like that. And back then, you would be like, oh, I want 1,000 files of cancer patients that look like this. and we would de-identify that data and then you would download that data into your environment. And so we didn't know what you were doing with the data, we didn't know what kind of value you were getting from it, we hoped that you would call back six months later, a year later, want more data, but it was very transactional. Over time, we basically said, look, we built this very large environment, we have something like 700 software engineers that have been working here for almost a decade, so we built this very large and many more. you can build cohorts of interest in lens, pull down the data, just exact data you want, the exact patients you want, which typically have criteria that would almost match a trial based on inclusion exclusion criteria. We're going like very deep characteristics of a cohort, pull that data into a workspace within our environment, build, you know, kind of either do your analytics or build models, and then you're off and running. and obviously that latter part of building models is new. You used to be able to just kind of do analytics and then kind of take the analytics out or download the files directly into your own environment. But now we're connecting Lens to 8 GPUs, 16 GPUs, 32 GPUs, some kind of cluster like that, typically denominations of 8, where clients are signing up for like 3 years of 32 GPUs. or three years of 64 GPUs. And they're building models in our environment that either have to stay in our environment or you pay an egress fee to pull them out. And so it's gone from like not sticky to crazy sticky. And so we just, you know, in light of how people are using our data today, we just don't know how they would in mass get off unless somebody else builds the same set of products we've built, which we don't see.

All right, thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Subbu Nambi with Guggenheim. Subbu, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. Good morning. Thank you for taking my question. In your letter, you specifically call out strength in excess of order acquisitions being up 25% year over year. Could you give us any additional color on what is driving strength? Is there any specific indication or academic setting, community setting, EMR integration, any reason? Thank you.

I'm happy to start. So you have some kind of macro trends which we've talked about a bit in the past that are just driving in the aggregate some overall liquid volume. One of them is the benefits of concurrent testing, especially for metastatic patients, is just high. So there's just been a ton of literature over the past few years about mutations, driver mutations you can find from solid tumor profiling or liquid profiling that you have to do both to find all of them. And we published on this as well, but it can be 10 to 20% of mutations that would be therapeutically relevant that you won't find if you only do solid tumor profiling or you only do liquid biopsies. So you have this movement to kind of do both more often for later stage patients that are high risk of mortality. And then you also have the benefits of kind of earlier testing, serial testing, certainly in certain indications where more and more it's becoming important to be changing therapies every six months or every year and getting another insight from a test. And so liquid is just a beneficiary of that. We've seen it, I think, overall in the market. Garden, who's a leader in that space, has posted really strong unit volume as well. And we just see this as a kind of a near-term trend of really robust growth in liquid. Up until now, our growth rates have been relatively consistent. Sal has been growing really strong, as has liquid. And we've historically called out that it's not meaningful to talk about the difference between the two of them. That's still the case for Q3. Our solid portfolio grew really quickly. But we did see a sign here in September, which we called out, that we saw this kind of uptick of whatever, 300, 400 basis points. If that continues into Q4, you will start to see the first signs of really differentiation between liquid and solid, where even with really strong growth rates in solid, liquid's outperforming. And with that plus MRD, it could be a propellant of growth rates over the next several quarters.

Perfect. Thank you so much.

Your next question comes from the line of Dan Brennan with TD Cohen. Dan, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Great. Thank you. Thanks for the question.

Sorry for the voice here.

Maybe just on EBITDA, you know, nice print. You know, consensus has margins expanding next year, I think, to 7% and then 11% in 2018. And there's always this push and pull for diagnostic companies how much you reinvest back in the business versus let it drop through. So I'm wondering, you've got that slide in the deck showing EBITDA like a line going up. Like the 7 and 11, is that like a reasonable ramp how you guys think about it? And connected to that, I know you have the $2,600 realized oncology price that you also pointed to in the next few years to be meaningfully above what we have today. So I'm just wondering how much of that increase in oncology pricing you guys would be inclined to drop through to the bottom line. Thank you.

I'm more than happy to start and then you can jump in. So, you know, I think our view on EBITDA kind of remains the same. You know, we're still relatively early days, a lot of the offerings. And so we've had this perspective of kind of reinvesting two thirds or roughly two thirds of any incremental gross profit dollars that we generate back in the business and then letting a third drop down to the bottom line. So, you know, obviously with Personalis coming on board, we were already going to invest a lot in MRD. We will utilize some of that reinvestment dollars to absorb the burn from Personalis. But then after another couple of years, then that flips, right? Then you're generating meaningful gross profit dollars such that you really only need to invest a third. You can let two thirds drop down to the bottom line. So we want to demonstrate that we continue to see leverage in the business, which you saw, obviously, a big step forward of that in the quarter. But we're not in a position where we want to maximize EBITDA in the short term because we think the opportunity set across our entire portfolio is so large that that would be a poor choice given that we're at our lifecycle.

Yeah, and I was just going to add, you know, we have obviously, you know, kind of now you can start to see this really strong EBITDA trend line that is picking up. But personnel who, you know, assuming that obviously closes here the next whatever later in Q4, they're burning money. And so you have to look at both businesses as one will have to absorb some of their losses. But even absorbing their losses, we still expect Improvements in EBITDA, and we're on a really nice trajectory where we've got to decide how to invest the strong gross profit dollar growth we're generating quarter after quarter.

Great. Thank you. Your last analyst question comes from the line of Dan Arias with Stifle. Dan, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hi, guys. Thanks for the questions here. Eric or Jim, within data, can you just maybe catch us up on where trials might lay in for the year on revenues or growth and then what the outlook might be there in the context of where AI is helping the cause? I mean, trial matching seems to be one of these areas where pharma folks are most encouraged about how things can get better with some of these newer capabilities. So curious whether you see an inflection there in the next year or two. Thanks.

Yeah, so we took our real time or just in time clinical trial matching business, which we call time. We tried to build a marketplace for a while to see if like small biotechs could load in their trials and would this marketplace evolve. We just didn't see that growth. And so we pivoted the business really about a year ago, maybe 18 months ago to be more enterprise focused on our largest enterprise data clients. So we're fortunate now that this network which spans north of a thousand oncologists across the country and has this really robust platform to be able to identify patients that are fit for a trial and get them on a trial produces what pharma needs badly, which is enrollments. We're a high generator of enrollments for pharma. and so it's a really nice asset. But I don't think it's going to scale into a billion dollar business. And so we had to essentially target it toward, hey, we're in these strategic partnerships with more and more large pharma clients, whether that's BMS or Merck or AstraZeneca, whatever. And these folks want and need help and we're tightly integrated. And so our time network now is enterprise-focused where you as a client have to come on, load on all or most of your oncology trials, and that's how the baskets are built. And we have a wait list of folks now that want into that network, so the kind of market dynamics have allowed that to become a really premium product. And I suspect it will continue to grow nicely. It's just not going to be a huge business. On the other side of our clinical trial matching business, our CRO business, as we mentioned years ago, kind of deemphasizing some of the just pure CRO work because there are other people that do that and do it well. And it is a business that is in significant flux relative to artificial intelligence and what that's going to mean for the administrative and logistic components of the CRO. And you're obviously seeing a lot of these big frontier modeling companies do deals with big ClinDev departments and big pharma trying to figure some of that out. We're fortunate that we don't play in that space. It's not important to us. We'll let other people tackle that.

I'll now pass the call back to Kendra for additional Q&A.

Thank you, Matt. For the first time, we're pleased to answer questions submitted by retail investors through the Robinhood platform. Our first question, can you classify the opportunity for growth outside of oncology? can you detail cardiology opportunities and other therapeutic areas of interest like nephrology, immunology, and neurology?

Yeah, so, I mean, obviously as you mentioned a few minutes ago, one of the biggest, you know, The benefits to the BMS deal is that it's our first really large deal outside oncology. So all of a sudden we're building a very large Alzheimer's data set. It's a $55 million deal to generate a data set of like half a million patients with Alzheimer and late stage dementia. And so it's really exciting. We've done smaller projects historically in data and apps to enter these new businesses, but this is really the first time someone's making a very large investment in real world data with Tempest to build these kind of agentic platforms. And we're excited because we think it's the start of a whole new round of growth for our data business, and we suspect it's going to continue at scale. On the diagnostic side, we obviously are big in oncology. We do a bit of neuropsych testing. We do some rare testing. It's more a function of where is there reimbursement for these tests. and we, like other companies, kind of have to follow where the reimbursement landscape goes before we can enter new categories. But we do have one of the broader portfolios today, pan disease, because we're in rare, we're in neuro, we do some cardio testing, obviously with big cancer portfolio, so we touch a bunch of disease areas.

Our next question, if investor appetite for AI-related companies weakens, How confident are you that operating cash flow and existing liquidity can fund your growth plans and the personnel acquisition?

I'm super confident. Jim, do you want to jump in?

Yeah, I mean, I'd say that the nice thing and part of the reason our business model is different is we're not overly reliant on one product. We have a very strong diagnostics business. Obviously, growth rates have been really strong in oncology. We're entering this period of increasing ASPs pretty dramatically, almost $750 over the next couple of years. A lot of those dollars can be used to fund investments elsewhere. Similarly, on the data side, you know, as we continue to sign up kind of these long term agreements with biopharma, again, gives us that visibility over the next several years to kind of continue growth. And lastly, as we mentioned on previous calls, you know, we're reinvesting heavily today. And certainly those investments are meant to drive long term growth. And so you can always scale that level of investment as necessary as well. But to Eric's point,

Our last retail question. Since data is the main input for diagnostics and using AI to interpret and generate an outcome based on the data, how can Tempest ensure that it has a growing inflow of patient data, and how can it ensure that it will have access to it in the future since it doesn't own the patient data?

Yeah, so first of all, our diagnostic business is important for the the data business, no question. You know, we're obviously, we're fortunate that we are, you know, one of the largest sequencers of patients for next generation sequencing in the world. And so we have a very broad portfolio from hereditary profiling to comprehensive genomic profiling with patients being treated to MRD and multiple diseases that we would suspect there's going to be a constant flow of new diagnostic data entering our platform. That said, if you look at the 50 million patients or so within Tempest's data set today, More than 80% of those patients are outside oncology. And even the patients within oncology, I think more than 80%, we didn't sequence. They're basically patients where the data is coming in because we have many, many, many data partnerships with academic medical centers and community practitioners. We have different products we offer where we get data as part of the product offering in terms of closing care gaps or matching patients to clinical trials. And so we have a constant stream of data coming in from more than 8,000 providers. And so we've kind of, over the last decade, very intentionally tried to make sure that pipes that bring data into our platform are highly diversified so that we never have to worry about is the data going to dry up. And just as we have crossed this chasm where the business is generating really strong gross profit dollar growth and EBITDA will generate tons of cash flow, it's the same thing on the data side. We just have so much data flowing from so many directions that we've hedged that risk.

Thanks, Eric. And thank you all for joining our call this morning. Have a great week.

This concludes today's call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.