CoreWeave vs. Nebius: Which AI Cloud Service Provider Stock Is a Better Long-Term Hold?

TradingKey - CoreWeave (CRWV) and Nebius (NBIS) both provide GPU computing power and supporting cloud services to AI laboratories, cloud providers, and enterprise clients.

CoreWeave has a larger revenue and order scale; Nebius is smaller in size, but its revenue is growing faster, with customer prepayments and a lower debt level easing some financing pressure. The long-term performance of both companies will depend on contract conversion, capital expenditures, customer concentration, and financing costs.

What Do AI Cloud Service Providers Do?

AI cloud service providers build or lease data centers, procure GPUs, and configure storage, networking, and software platforms to provide customers with compute capacity for model training, fine-tuning, and inference. Revenue is primarily derived from pay-as-you-go usage, reserved capacity, and long-term contracts, with key competitive factors including GPU and power supply, platform performance, delivery speed, compute utilization rates, and cost of capital.

What Is the Difference Between CoreWeave and Nebius?

CoreWeave primarily serves AI labs, cloud computing companies, and large enterprises, with its currently public GPU instances all using Nvidia (NVDA) accelerators. In addition to its AI cloud business, Nebius operates autonomous driving business Avride and edtech business TripleTen, and holds equity stakes in ClickHouse and Toloka.

In the second quarter of 2026, Nebius AI cloud revenue reached $575 million, representing approximately 98.7% of the group's $582 million total revenue. Both companies require continuous investment in GPUs, data centers, and power infrastructure, and whether orders can be converted into revenue on schedule depends on equipment delivery, power supply conditions, and financing progress.

CoreWeave Is Bigger, Nebius Grows Faster

CoreWeave reported second-quarter 2026 revenue of $2.575 billion, up 112% year-over-year; adjusted EBITDA was $1.510 billion, representing a margin of 59%, with a GAAP net loss of $626 million. As of the end of June, the company's remaining performance obligations stood at $103.7 billion, of which approximately 41% is expected to be recognized within the 24 months ending June 30, 2028. The pace of revenue recognition depends on data center capacity delivery and service availability.

During the same period, Nebius reported group revenue of $582 million, up 454% year-over-year. Of this, AI cloud business revenue accounted for $575 million with an adjusted EBITDA margin of 49.7%. The group's adjusted EBITDA margin was approximately 41%, and the GAAP net loss from continuing operations was $190 million.

Nebius disclosed that customer commitments have exceeded $40 billion. The company signed four large AI cloud agreements in the second quarter, with an average total contract value exceeding $1 billion. These agreements primarily correspond to new capacity coming online by the end of 2026 and are expected to mainly contribute to 2027 revenue.

Capital Expenditures, Debt and Customer Concentration Pose Major Risks

CoreWeave's operating cash flow for the first half of 2026 was $3.663 billion, and capital expenditures on property and equipment were $14.117 billion. As of the end of June, the company held $5.524 billion in cash, with the book value of debt at approximately $35.068 billion and total principal debt at $35.551 billion. In the second quarter, its top three customers contributed 36%, 26%, and 10% of revenue, respectively. Adjustments to customer procurement or project delays could significantly impact revenue and cash flow.

During the same period, Nebius's operating cash flow was $4.504 billion, of which deferred revenue increased by $4.395 billion, primarily driven by customer prepayments. Capital expenditures for property, equipment, and intangible assets reached $8.130 billion. As of the end of June, the company held $8.042 billion in cash, with combined current and non-current debt of approximately $8.546 billion and net debt of approximately $504 million.

Nebius's net debt scale is significantly lower than that of CoreWeave, but data center expansion still requires substantial capital. The company raised funds in the first half of the year through convertible bonds, treasury share sales, and pre-funded warrants. Continued financing may increase interest expenses and dilute existing shareholders' equity.

CRWV and NBIS: Which Stock Is Better Suited for Long-Term Holding?

CoreWeave has a larger revenue scale, $103.7 billion in remaining performance obligations, and an adjusted EBITDA margin of 59%, offering a more direct revenue elasticity to AI computing demand. The book value of the company's debt is approximately $35.068 billion, with its top three customers contributing a combined 72% of revenue in the second quarter, leaving its performance relatively sensitive to financing costs, customer procurement, and data center delivery schedules.

Nebius has a smaller revenue scale, but its second-quarter revenue surged 454% year-over-year. As of the end of June, the company had $8.042 billion in cash and approximately $8.546 billion in debt; customer prepayments can provide partial funding for data center construction. The company still needs to deliver new capacity on schedule and convert over $40 billion in customer commitments into revenue and sustainable profitability.

Investors who value current scale, order visibility, and adjusted profitability may focus more on CRWV, while assuming higher leverage and customer concentration risks. Investors who prioritize revenue growth, lower net debt, and long-term expansion potential may look at NBIS, while accepting capacity expansion, financing, and equity dilution risks.

If choosing only one, assuming a minimal valuation gap, NBIS faces relatively lower balance sheet pressure and is better suited for investors who can tolerate significant volatility and hold for more than three years.

CRWV's advantages lie in its scale and order backlog, but higher leverage elevates long-term holding risk. The final choice should still incorporate both companies' enterprise values, forward revenue multiples, and subsequent financing arrangements.