One-sentence summary
In Q3 2026 CoreWeave reported $3.66 billion of revenue and a $709 million net loss; Nebius reported $980.8 million of revenue and its first GAAP operating profit of $50.4 million, while still posting a $37.5 million net loss. Revenue differs 3.7x but capital expenditure is nearly level ($9.44 billion versus $7.30 billion). The real dividing line is interest expense — $846 million versus $112.5 million — and the thickness of shareholders' equity, $4.0 billion versus $12.3 billion.
Why compare these two
CoreWeave and Nebius are the most directly comparable pair in this generation of AI cloud companies, often called neoclouds. Both build their businesses around GPU clusters, both rent compute to AI training and inference customers, both are listed on Nasdaq, and both reported third-quarter results between November 10 and 12, 2026.
Read together, the two reports show two capital structures on the same racetrack. CoreWeave expands with debt and customer prepayments, compressing shareholders' equity to $4.0 billion. Nebius expands with equity and convertible notes, holding $12.3 billion of equity at the cost of deeper dilution.
Side-by-side figures
| Metric (Q3 2026) | CoreWeave | Nebius | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.661B | $980.8M | 3.73x |
| Revenue growth YoY | +168% | +571% | — |
| Revenue growth QoQ | +42% (over $1B sequential gain) | +68% | — |
| Operating income | $207M (6%) | $50.4M (5%) | Both positive |
| Net interest expense | $846M | $112.5M | 7.5x |
| Net income from continuing operations | -$709M (-19%) | -$37.5M (-3.8%) | — |
| Adjusted EBITDA | $2.256B (62%) | $465.8M (47.5%) | — |
| Depreciation and amortization | $1.889B (52% of revenue) | $354.7M (36%) | — |
| Q3 purchases of property, equipment and intangibles (cash) | $9.441B | $7.300B | 1.29x |
| Capex / revenue | 2.58x | 7.44x | — |
| Customer prepayments (definitions differ) | ~$9B expected in next three months | $9.409B deferred revenue balance | — |
| Cash at period end | $4.122B | $7.426B | — |
| Total assets | $91.481B | $38.744B | 2.36x |
| Total liabilities | $87.456B | $26.445B | 3.31x |
| Shareholders' equity | $4.025B | $12.299B | 3.06x |
| Accounts receivable | not separately disclosed | $4.040B | — |
| Active power | above 1.7 GW | not disclosed | — |
| Revenue backlog | ~$132.5B | not disclosed | — |
Nine-month totals: CoreWeave revenue $8.314 billion with a $2.075 billion net loss; Nebius revenue $1.962 billion with $393.3 million of net income, including $780.6 million of gains from revaluation of equity investments.
Difference 1: revenue differs 3.7x, capex only 1.3x
This is the first number that jumps out when the two statements sit side by side.
CoreWeave bought $9.441 billion of equipment and intangibles in the quarter and produced $3.661 billion of revenue. Nebius bought $7.300 billion and produced $980.8 million. Capex divided by revenue gives 2.58x for CoreWeave and 7.44x for Nebius.
That ratio says two things. First, Nebius is on a steeper capacity ramp: equipment arrives before revenue is recognized. Second, CoreWeave's assets are already generating more revenue per dollar of current capex — $0.39 of quarterly revenue per dollar of quarterly capex, against $0.13 for Nebius.
The ratio alone does not rank them. Nebius grew revenue 571% year over year against CoreWeave's 168%, reflecting a smaller base and faster ramp, while CoreWeave's 62% adjusted EBITDA margin against 47.5% reflects a more mature asset base.
Difference 2: interest decides the bottom line, not operations
Both posted positive GAAP operating income this quarter: CoreWeave $207 million (6% margin) and Nebius $50.4 million (5%, its first positive quarter). Yet net income diverged to -$709 million versus -$37.5 million.
The gap sits below the operating line. CoreWeave's $846 million of net interest expense was four times its operating income; Nebius's $112.5 million was 2.2 times. Add CoreWeave's $83 million income tax expense and the net loss reaches $709 million.
The scale of interest follows the scale of debt. At quarter end CoreWeave carried $9.183 billion current and $32.417 billion non-current recourse debt, plus $1.389 billion current and $3.884 billion non-current non-recourse debt. Nebius carried $187.5 million current and $14.003 billion non-current debt. The former builds capacity through project finance and contract-backed lending; the latter mostly through convertibles and equity.
Nebius's net result also carries an easily missed item: $49.5 million of induced conversion expense on its convertible notes in the quarter, a one-off item unrelated to operations.
On the nine-month view, Nebius reports $393.3 million of net income, but $780.6 million of that comes from revaluation of equity investments. Strip out that non-operating gain and the nine-month result is a loss. This has to be stated plainly, otherwise the figure reads as sustained profitability.
Difference 3: customer prepayments come in two forms and cannot be compared directly
Both companies emphasise customers paying ahead. But the definitions differ entirely and the two figures cannot be placed side by side as a comparison.
CoreWeave said on its call that it expects roughly $9 billion of customer prepayments and deposits over the next three months — a forward-looking statement, not yet booked.
Nebius carries it as deferred revenue on the balance sheet: $1.446 billion current plus $7.964 billion non-current, totaling $9.409 billion — cash already received against revenue not yet recognized.
One is "expected to be received"; the other is "already received." Setting $9 billion against $9.409 billion produces a false conclusion. A sounder comparison: Nebius's $9.409 billion of deferred revenue equals 1.29x its single-quarter capex of $7.300 billion. CoreWeave's $132.5 billion backlog includes remaining performance obligations plus company estimates and is not the same concept as deferred revenue; it cannot be converted either.
Difference 4: depreciation intensity and asset maturity
Depreciation as a share of revenue is a direct read on asset maturity for a neocloud.
CoreWeave recorded $1.889 billion of depreciation and amortization, 52% of revenue; Nebius recorded $354.7 million, 36%. A higher share means more depreciating assets already on the books relative to current revenue.
This corroborates the capex-to-revenue ratio: CoreWeave's assets are running, with depreciation concentrated in the current period; Nebius's assets are still ramping, so its depreciation share is lower for now and will rise as equipment enters service.
Note that without disclosure of depreciation lives, neither company's asset age can be inferred. Neither press release expands on accounting policy here.
Difference 5: one line worth watching — accounts receivable
Nebius's accounts receivable rose from $720.3 million at end-2025 to $4.040 billion at the end of September 2026, roughly 4.6x in nine months, against revenue growth of 5.5x. That pace tracks revenue and is normal for an expansion phase, but the absolute level is notable: $4.040 billion equals about 4.1x its quarterly revenue.
CoreWeave does not disclose receivables separately in its release, so no same-definition comparison is possible. This is a watch item, not a basis for judging collection quality.
Conclusion: one racetrack, two capital structures
Pulling the five differences together, the two companies are running different playbooks.
CoreWeave's playbook: pledge customer contracts, stack convertibles and customer prepayments, and push leverage to the limit to build capacity. The advantage is limited dilution and a 62% adjusted EBITDA margin; the risk is that interest expense now approaches the scale of full-year adjusted operating income, so any delivery delay or customer payment shift hits net income directly.
Nebius's playbook: fund with equity and convertibles and build a thicker balance sheet. The advantage is a lighter interest burden and $12.3 billion of equity as a buffer; the risk is deeper dilution, and a capex-to-revenue ratio of 7.44x means continued funding needs, with pressure landing on cash flow first if financing windows tighten.
For an observer, the two statements together provide a useful coordinate: with similar "fast revenue growth plus positive operating income," net income can differ by a factor of 19, and the cause sits below the operating line, in the financing structure.
What must not be compared directly
- Backlog versus deferred revenue: CoreWeave's $132.5 billion is remaining performance obligations plus company estimates, a multi-year cumulative measure; Nebius's $9.409 billion is cash received against unrecognized revenue. They cannot be summed, converted, or ranked by ratio.
- Customer prepayments: CoreWeave's $9 billion is "expected over the next three months"; Nebius's $9.409 billion is "already received." Different timing.
- Power and capacity: Nebius's release does not disclose active power, contracted power or GPU deployment; CoreWeave does not disclose single-customer concentration. Any "output per unit of power" comparison lacks data on both sides.
- Non-GAAP definitions: the two companies adjust differently for adjusted EBITDA (Nebius excludes ten items including interest income, equity-method results and investment revaluation). Cross-company adjusted margins indicate trend only, not equivalence.
- Non-operating components of net income: Nebius's nine-month net income includes $780.6 million of investment revaluation gains; CoreWeave's net loss includes $83 million of income tax expense. Both need stripping out before reading operations.
- This article does not judge whether either valuation is justified and makes no forecast for the next quarter.
Sources
- CoreWeave press release: CoreWeave Reports Strong Third Quarter 2026 Results (November 10, 2026)
- Nebius press release: Nebius reports third quarter 2026 financial results (November 12, 2026)
- Nebius Q3 2026 full release via Business Wire, carried by Morningstar
- Related on this site: Oracle, CoreWeave and Nvidia: AI infrastructure financing compared