ZoomInfo Technologies Inc.

Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Zoom Info first quarter 2026 financial results conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question, please press star 1-1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 1-1 again. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Jerry Szyzycki, Vice President of Investor Relations.

Thanks, Josh.

Welcome to ZoomInfo's financial results conference call for the first quarter of 2026. With me on the call today are Henry Shuck, founder and CEO of ZoomInfo, and Graham O'Brien, our Chief Financial Officer. During this call, any forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of U.S. securities laws.

Expressions of future goals, including business outlook, expectations for future financial performance, and similar items, including, without limitation, expressions using the terminology may, will, expect, anticipate, and believe, and expressions which reflect something other than historical facts, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties, including those discussed in the risk factor sections of our SEC filings. Actual results may differ materially from any forward-looking statements.

The company undertakes no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements in order to reflect events that may arise after this conference call, except as required by law. For more information, please refer to the forward-looking statements in the slides posted to the investor relations website at ir.zunitro.com. All metrics on this call are non-YAP unless otherwise noted. A reconciliation can be found in the financial results press release or in the slides posted to our IR website. With that, I'll turn the call over to Henry.

Thank you, Jerry, and welcome, everyone. We started 2026 by delivering revenue and adjusted operating income above the high end of our Q1 guidance. Revenue for the first quarter was $310 million, up 1.5% year over year, and adjusted operating income margin was 35%, up more than two points year over year. Our non-seat-based operations and data-as-a-service offerings, one of the most profitable parts of the business and almost exclusively upmarket, again grew more than 20% year-over-year in the quarter and now makes up just under 20% of our business. While we exceeded our guidance in Q1, as macro conditions worsened at the end of the quarter, we experienced a regression in our downmarket and upmarket growth trajectories. In the closing days of March and into April, we saw a trend of AI and agentic confusion in our customer conversations. What can be built versus bought? What vendor or internal team delivers what? And where the differentiation really lives? This led to a pause in purchasing decisions, and our software customers were particularly affected. As many are facing a confusing purchasing landscape compounded by the threat of their own growth disruption, creating a circular headwind in our space. As a result, we're revising our full-year guidance down in conjunction with significant cost reductions that we believe will position us with structurally higher operating margins and create a faster path back to durable growth. This was hard because of the impact on a large number of our teammates, many with long tenures here, who did good work to get us to this point. Change is necessary and a positive decision for the future of Zoom Info. We made these changes with an eye on the opportunity for us to expand consumption of our data with the proliferation of AI, an opportunity we believe to be potentially larger than anything we've seen in the first 20 years of operating the business. AI has structurally changed how software is built, bought, and used. LLMs have given go-to-market teams a simpler interface to work with data and build custom revenue workflows without heavy technical support. These interfaces will increase across all of software, and as they do, our traditional seats tied to application model will come under pressure, while at the same time, our opportunity to tie into the growth slipstream of go-to-market work that LLMs and coding agents enable expands through our data offering. Our strategy is to make ZoomInfo's go-to-market data ubiquitous, available wherever go-to-market work gets done. including ChatGPT, Cloud, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and internally built applications. With an increasingly headless approach to software, these workflows become materially more valuable when powered by our data and insights. Confusion around what AI can do and cannot do and where our data critically plugs in is temporary. And combined with pockets of overhang in our seats-based pricing, may create a near-term net headwind in our business. The long-term tailwind as AI agents and interfaces continue to grow exponentially is to ensure our high-quality go-to-market data plugs in across those growing surface areas. The promise of that future upside is evident in our operations business and in the value our largest customers continue to assign to their investments with Zoom Info. Zoom Info understands complex Global 2000 account hierarchies. curates proprietary contact data, operates a privacy-first identity graph, enriches 5.5 billion data attributes, and processes 1.05 trillion intent signals each month. Each raw data point needs to be cleansed, normalized, and transformed into go-to-market-ready output every day. AI-driven or not, go-to-market organizations need this data infrastructure from ZoomInfo. Capturing this shift requires us to sell and operate differently. Our actions this morning across our employee base restructure ZoomInfo to operate more efficiently, generate stronger cash flow, and reposition our data assets, APIs, and MCPs as a larger, more durable part of the business. Our operations business shows the model we believe the market is moving toward, non-seat based, data led, upmarket, high retention, and highly defensible. Our goal is to make more of ZoomInfo transact and grow that way. As part of that evolution, we're leading with data. Beginning in Q3, customers will have the flexibility to convert historical per-seat spend into consumption across ZoomInfo data, insights, applications, and agents. Many customers use the platform in this way today, so this will be a more formal effort in matching the pricing and value delivery to the best customer behaviors and outcomes. We're expanding where customers can access and pay for Zoom Info data, including ChatGPT, Cloud, Gemini, Copilot, and internally built applications. And we're shifting investment from front-end application development toward data, AI-enabled engineering, product-led growth, LLM interfaces, and higher margin customer segments. I want to briefly explain the durability of our data assets. Zoom Info's moat is not a single data set. It is a layered system, proprietary B2B data, contributory network inputs, public and partner sourced intelligence, real-time business signals, entity resolution, a privacy-first identity graph, governance infrastructure, and activation workflows. At the foundation is ZoomInfo's intelligence layer, billions of data points with more than 140 million company entity records, 580 million plus IP to organization pairings, more than 500 million professional profiles, and data including intent, hierarchy, location, financial information, personnel moves, technology usage, funding details, organizational charts, news, and other commercial signals. The value is not just collecting this data, it is resolving it. Company names change, M&A happens, people change roles, titles vary, subsidiaries roll into parents, and the same person can appear differently across dozens of sources. ZoomInfo resolves that noise into a living, governed, commercially useful graph that customers can activate in their workflows. The next layers are signal and context data, identifying who's in market and why. Foundation models are incredible at reasoning, writing, summarizing, and automating, but they do not inherently know which companies are real targets, which contacts are current, which buying signals are fresh, which account hierarchies matter, which technologies are installed, which prospects are in market, or which internal CRM patterns predict conversion. GTM AI becomes useful only when the model is grounded in accurate, permissioned, current, entity-resolved business context. Our signal and context layer is built around our contributory network and proprietary identity graphs, both unique, non-publicly available data assets that create real value for go-to-markets. The final layer is trust, governance, accuracy, privacy, and compliance. We collect, verify, and publish high-quality, ethically-sourced business information with a privacy program built around global privacy laws like the CCPA, PIPEDA, and GDPR. Our notice and choice program provides notification when professional profiles first appear on the platform, offers multiple opt-out methods, honors removal requests, and takes steps to prevent removed profiles from being re-added. Our governance framework aligns with major regulatory regimes, and we maintain the industry's most robust set of privacy, security, and compliance certifications. As GTM work becomes increasingly agentic, every AI seller, marketer, RevOps workflow, and customer growth motion will need a trusted intelligence layer that tells it who to target, why now, what changed, and what to do next. Our customers, industry analysts, and partners are validating this. Customers ranked us number one in 142 G2 Spring 2026 reports across sales intelligence, buyer intent data, and lead capture. Forrester's recent wave for marketing and sales data providers called ZoomInfo, quote, entrenched as the default data provider for B2B sales, setting a technology standard for data collection and identity resolution. In Q1, Salesforce released its prospecting agent with Zoom Info as the first and primary external data provider. Our contact company intent and scoops data powers recommendations across Salesforce's 150,000 plus customer base. HubSpot also shipped its prospecting agent with a native Zoom Info integration. When the two largest CRM platforms choose Zoom Info to power AI prospecting agents, it reinforces the durability and relevance of our data assets. We also launched connectors for ChatGPT, Cloud, Microsoft Copilot, and Perplexity, and are advancing our Google Gemini integration. Data integrations have doubled year over year, and MCP connections are growing organically without dedicated sales or marketing. We expanded Go-To-Market Studio trials to more than a quarter of existing customers, helping customers build automated workflows triggered by Zoom Info Signals. Going forward, our application layers will serve as engines for data engagement and consumption, rather than standalone application fee products. As customers renew in the back half of the year, we're introducing more flexible pricing and packaging built around data access and usage. This reduces reliance on platform fees and per seat charges, lowers the overhang from seat compression, and better aligns monetization with customer value. We expect most customers to transition at similar price points, with some moving lower and some higher. While this may create a near-term revenue headwind, it gives us a cleaner model and a better opportunity to grow as customers expand their use of ZoomInfo data. Turning to customer wins, in Q1, we signed deals with Sierra, Lyft, and Wyndham Hotels and Resorts. We also closed a strategic win with the Unicorn Cloud Software Company, serving MSPs. displacing the incumbent and beating more than half a dozen alternatives, including an internally developed AI tool to become its core data and enrichment platform across go-to-market studio and workspace. An AI native security and compliance platform also expanded across studio, co-pilot, and DAF in a multi-year seven-figure TCV transaction to power its go-to-market motions. We continue to be opportunistic with the $1 billion incremental share repurchase authorization announced last quarter. We're confident in our ability to generate strong cash flow and operate the business efficiently while we execute the strategic shift. We remain committed to returning capital to shareholders in the most value accretive way possible while ensuring we maintain long-term flexibility. With that, I'll turn the call over to Graham. Thanks, Henry.

Q1 gap revenue was $310 million, up 1.5% year-over-year, and adjusted operating income was $110 million, a margin of 35%, with both revenue and AOI coming in above the high end of the guidance ranges we provided. Unlevered free cash flow was $120 million, with $21 million in interest paid in cash during the quarter. In the seasonally slower quarter, upmarket ACV grew 5% year-over-year, a step down from 6% year-over-year growth in the fourth quarter, but an improvement from 3% upmarket ACV growth in the year-ago period. Downmarket ACV declined 11% year-over-year in Q1, as compared to a decline of 10% in the fourth quarter and in the year-ago period. Upmarket is now 75% of our business. Customers with greater than $100,000 in ACV increased by 32 year-over-year, while decreasing 21 sequentially, and ACB from that cohort increased 10% year over year. As Henry highlighted, operations had another strong quarter, with ACB growth greater than 20% year over year. Net revenue retention was 90% in Q1, the third quarter in a row of 90% net revenue retention. Overall, it was a solid quarter, but we saw a shift in buyer behavior exiting the quarter and into Q2. Growth retention held in well overall, but customers in our software vertical experienced elevated rates of down-sell and churn relative to the improving trends we had seen in 2025. As we moved through March, we saw more customer confusion in the marketplace around what AI can and cannot do and increased macroeconomic uncertainty. With the improving trends we had seen in 2025 starting to moderate, it became clear that our growth progression was no longer on schedule and that now is the right moment to be proactive and accelerate the timeline of our strategic initiatives. We believe we can further right-size the downmarket business, shift to a better-suited pricing model for our customers while reducing the potential overhang from further seat compression. As we consolidate global operations while largely protecting profitability in the process, despite the near-term revenue impact, we can return to healthier growth levels sooner than a status quo approach would deliver. As a result, we are now guiding to FY2026 revenue in the range of $1.185 billion to $1.205 billion. This is a proactive improvement measure in a period of significant transition. While our initial guidance for the year did not embed upside for new product initiatives, it also did not anticipate the environment getting worse. Our updated guidance adds some incremental top-line conservatism to account for a fluctuating macroeconomic environment as well as the potential for near-term headwinds as we execute against our strategic initiatives. We make this adjustment to our full-year guidance, which we believe will help set up a new foundation over the next 12 to 18 months that we can ultimately begin to grow from, while at the same time committing to improved profitability outcomes. We are now guiding to full-year AOI of $437 million to $447 million, and an AOI margin of 37% at the midpoint of guidance. up 130 basis points year-over-year, and an improvement of 30 basis points as compared to our prior full-year guidance. As we look to operate more efficiently with a long-term focus on data and consumption, the changes announced today impact 20% of our employees or 600 team members, including closing our facilities in Israel. Israel has been an important part of our organization, and while these were all difficult decisions, They reflect our commitment to operating the business in the most efficient and strategically focused way possible. Some of the roles impacted will be hired in other regions, and some of these roles will not be replaced as we operate with a leaner, more focused organization. Across every team at ZoomInfo, we're doing more with less. With over 85% of employees actively using our internal AI operating system, AI bolstered work is now the rule, not the exception. whether it's shipping more code per engineer, multiples more, with fewer bugs in R&D, building custom apps in finance that replace manual processes and external spend, or building intelligent campaigns on demand in sales and marketing, AI is unlocking productivity at an unprecedented pace. As I noted last quarter, fee-based pricing contribution peaks in 2022, and we have progressively decreased that contribution every year since then. We expect to accelerate this transition further. Approximately one-third of our ACV is not tied to seats, and our goal is to shift that closer to 50-50 in the next 18 to 24 months. We plan to roll out a hybrid pricing model later in Q3 that pairs a low annual platform fee with pre-purchase credits rather than our traditional seat-based packages. The consumption portion will be similar to how we account for operations in DAS, selling packages of data credits to customers that will be consumed over time across any platform and counted as ACV. This is the next step in the evolution away from seat-based pricing as we build on the positive momentum from the expansion of enterprise license agreements across our largest customers. There are two long-term benefits here related to net revenue retention. Less downsell pressure coming from seat compression, while at the same time data consumption trends increase over time. generating upsell opportunity, leading to improved NRR outcomes. This shift to consumption introduces some variability in revenue recognition, driven by the timing of credit consumption relative to credit allowances. This dynamic is reflected in our revised revenue guidance. As part of this evolution, we are eliminating more downmarket sales resources, shifting downmarket almost exclusively to product-led growth, enabling us to further accelerate the shift up market while we expand our focus on data. As a result of these actions, we expect restructuring costs of $45 to $60 million, the majority of which are cash costs and expected to be incurred in Q2 and Q3, 2026. We expect to reduce annual run rate operating expenses by approximately $60 million with the actions, including restructuring the entirety of our Israeli operations largely complete by Q1 of 2027. Additionally, the majority of transitionary compensation costs from notification date through the completion of the discontinuation of operations in Israel will be added back for purposes of calculating our non-GAAP metrics. Even as we absorb these restructuring costs, our cash position and our underlying cash generation remain strong. Turning to cash in the period. GAAP operating cash flow was $115 million in Q1. Unlevered free cash flow for the quarter was $120 million, 109% conversion from adjusted operating income, and representing a margin of 39%. GAAP stock-based compensation expense was $25.5 million, down 14% year over year, and representing 8% of revenue. As a percentage of revenue, adjusted expenses combined with stock-based compensation improved five points year over year, reflecting a significant improvement to the quality of our earnings. We continue to prioritize performance-based compensation for cash and equity compensation with achieving rigorous free cash flow objectives. In Q1, we repurchased 13.1 million shares of common stock at an average price of $6.91 for an aggregate $90 million. Inclusive of the repurchase authorization announced in February, we had more than $1 billion in remaining repurchase capacity at the end of the quarter. Weighted average diluted shares outstanding for the quarter used in calculating non-GAAP diluted earnings per share was 318 million, and the non-GAAP share count exiting the quarter was 310 million. We ended the quarter with $175 million in cash cash equivalents and investments, and we carried $1.3 billion in gross debt. As a result, our net leverage ratio is both 2.4 times trailing 12 months adjusted EBITDA and 2.4 times trailing 12 months cash EBITDA, which is defined as consolidated EBITDA in our credit agreements, as compared to 2.5 and 2.3 times in the year-ago period. The $650 million in senior notes mature in 2029, and $581 million first lien term loan matures in 2030. We are comfortable with our current maturity profile, and we have sufficient liquidity and cash generation to manage our obligations as they come due. During the quarter, we entered into interest rate swap to fix a portion of our variable rate debt. We executed $425 million of notional interest rate swaps at a blended fixed rate of 3.28%. reducing our exposure to SOFR volatility while providing greater visibility into interest expense and free cash flow. Following the close of the quarter, we amended our revolving credit facility to increase total commitments from $250 million to $276 million, with U.S. Bank joining the lender group through an incremental commitment of $26 million. No additional borrowings were made in connection with the amendment. The upsizing expands and diversifies the lending group, while providing additional liquidity capacity. With respect to liabilities and future performance obligations, unearned revenue at the end of the quarter was $479 million, and remaining performance obligations, or RPO, were $1.18 billion, of which $861 million are expected to be recognized in the next 12 months. Shifting to guidance for Q2, We expect GAAP revenue in the range of $300 to $303 million, adjusted operating income in the range of $103 to $106 million, and non-GAAP net income in the range of 26 cents to 28 cents per share. And for the full year 2026, we now expect GAAP revenue in the range of $1.185 to $1.205 billion, representing a 4% year-over-year decline at the midpoint of guidance. and adjusted operating income in the range of $437 to $447 million, representing a 37 percent margin at the midpoint of guidance, up 130 basis points year over year. We expect non-GAAP net income in the range of $1.10 to $1.12 per share, consistent with our prior guidance, based on 315 million weighted average diluted shares outstanding. and we expect unlevered free cash flow in the range of $400 to $420 million. I would expect non-GAAP tax rate of closer to 10% in 2026 and cash interest expense in the range of $60 to $62 million. We believe the actions and initiatives announced today will set us up to run rate at least $1.25 of adjusted levered free cash flow per share as we enter 2027. across a range of revenue growth and share repurchase scenarios. Now, I will turn it over to the operator to open the call for questions.

Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star 1-1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 1-1 again. One moment for questions. And our first question comes from Mark Murphy with J.P. Morgan. You may proceed.

Thank you very much.

Henry, I'm wondering how big of a spread do you see in the demand patterns out there if you compare the software vertical up against traditional industries that might not have as much of a terminal value discussion occurring at the moment? And I have a quick follow-up.

Yeah, I can take that one, Mark. You know, we're seeing – we saw about you know, almost two years of sequential improvements to retention in software. And that was flat in Q1. And that's a big data point as we, you know, consider that in the outlook and in the guidance revision. When I look at other verticals that are, you know, potentially not having the terminal question, I look at finance, insurance, real estate, manufacturing, telecom. We had really solid performance quarters there, where we continue to see really promising growth possibility.

Okay, so it's a very software-centric kind of situation, it sounds like. I'm curious as well, just how much of the AI confusion you're seeing, would you relate to the takeoff of Cloud Code during the month of March? I think that's when you saw, you know, a bit of a shift. And that seemed to be the period of liftoff for Cloud Code. And just as a corollary, any thought on how long that period of AI confusion might last?

Yeah, I think the big shift here is even in our most sophisticated software clients, what we're seeing them shift away from is a seat license in Zoom Info and shift to significantly more consumption of our data inside of Quad with our MCPs through our APIs. We have a number of examples of AI native companies who have shifted from seats but are spending meaningfully more with us through consumption of our data in their internal applications that they've built through our MCPs, through our APIs, through bulk credit consumption. And so we have a lot of confidence that there's this moment where companies are confused about what they actually need to be able to build their own internal applications, to build their own revenue workflows, where the most sophisticated AI native companies are leveraging our data throughout that entire workflow. And then companies that are doing sort of quick AI projects have not made that realization yet. And so we are positioning the company from a pricing and packaging perspective to take advantage of that situation so that when we talk to a customer who tells us, I don't need seats anymore because I've built my own application, that we can be really flexible and say, look, your own application is gonna need contact information, it's gonna need company information, it's gonna need hierarchy information, it's gonna need signal information, and we can be really flexible on your transition over to that as you build your own internal application.

Understood, thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Taylor McGinnis with UBS. You may proceed.

Yeah, hi. Thanks so much, Tom, for taking my questions. First one would just be on when we look at the customers with greater than 100K deal sizes that fell quarter over quarter, I know you mentioned earlier that you're seeing customers pause in light of this. But could you comment on some of these larger customer dynamics with that KPI and then also too with CRPO declining quarter over quarter? Maybe you could just comment on what exactly you're seeing amongst this larger cohort of customers.

Sure. On the 100K, the activity in the 100K logo was a good microcosm of the quarter for the full business. There are four ways logos can enter or exit that cohort. You can buy in new from zero, you can enter via upsell, you can downsell out, you can churn altogether. And when we look at Q1 this year versus Q1 last year, our performance improved or held flat across three of these entry and exit points. We sold in more new logos, we had significantly fewer downsell out, and we had about the same that churned altogether, which is a pretty low number. The upsell in is where we saw the significant decrease year over year. And that's representative of the challenges we saw around incremental purchases near the end of the quarter. On CPR, CRPO, you know, it's up 3% year over year in a slower Q1. I don't think that that outcome was really outside of our range of expectations.

Great, thanks. And then maybe, you know, going back to the pricing model change that you guys commented earlier, I think the The comment was that you expect customers to renew under the new model at a similar deal size as compared to the old model. So can you just give us, you know, some proof points if you've had, you know, customers that have made, you know, that transition already under operations, you know, as in what you've seen there that's giving you guys, you know, that comfort in this kind of net neutral positioning as we move to the new models?

Yeah, we tested this with a number of our customers, and what we're seeing is two things. Some customers, it's pretty similar price points as they shipped away from seats. You're going to see some customers shift up, you'll see some customers shift down, and it's largely based on how much they're consuming our data. For downmarket users, we're going to eliminate the access friction by moving away from term platform fees and seat floors, tying price much closer to value. And then larger customers should expect simpler pricing and a less siloed product experience where their credits are purchased and then consumed really anywhere, inside of Zoom Info applications or outside of Zoom Info applications. And so we're seeing some up, some down, and we think it ends sort of net positively.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Lucas Sarasola with Morgan Stanley. You may proceed.

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. I'm on close with the board tonight. So, you know, with software demand exiting March and April, especially in software, should we think about Q2 as the growth trough? And then what needs to improve for you guys to be comfortable with the back half of the year?

Yeah, I look at it through some of the maybe some of the leading indicators. Certainly, we've guided Q2 revenue to be down year over year. But I think what we're really focused on is setting an expectation level that's going to allow us to accelerate these strategic initiatives in the back half of the year. So as we do shift more towards consumption, as we do right size our down market business to be more PLG or essentially almost exclusively PLG focused that we, you know, we do go through a few quarters there where we do flip negative before getting back to, you know, more opportunity for positive year over year growth in the back half of 2027.

I think the other thing that's worth pinning here is the bulk of the cut is deliberate and it's down market oriented. And we're doing that and accelerating the transition here because we're clearly seeing the opportunity for consumption across a number of surface areas in our business. More clearly, our customers who are on go-to-market studio are consuming significantly more than their counterparts not on studio. Our customers in our MCP application that were really released over the last eight weeks, are meaningful consumers of our data through the LLM platforms that our MCPs are plugged into. So I think the big milestones are we need to put more of our customers into these high consumption interfaces. And that's our strategic focus right now.

Got it. And then just one more, if I may. Thinking about profitability as inference costs keep going up, How do we think about, you know, as you guys scale the business and customers continue to consume, how the profitability picture will look in the coming years?

Yeah, when I look at the kind of the pro forma view of the business exiting this year, I think that when we return to growth on a more consistent basis, we're going to have an opportunity to do so as a 40% margin company instead of a 35% margin company. And when I break that down, I expect cost of service is still probably 13% to 14% of revenue. The sales and marketing is closer to 27% with a path down to 25%. R&D is steady around 10% with a path lower, and G&A at 10% with a path lower. The business will be primed to deliver 40% margins with that return to growth, and the initiatives we announced today were a big part of that.

Thanks, guys.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Brad Zelnick with Deutsche Bank. You may proceed.

Great. Thanks so much for taking the question. I guess my question, how much does the updated guidance, Graham, reflect the hesitation and downsell that you saw in Q1 continuing throughout the remainder of the year versus the impact of moving to consumption-style deals and Can you remind us the rev rec on those consumption deals?

Yeah. You know, as we proactively change how the business is structured and how we price and deliver, we're accounting for all of that. We're accounting for the down market restructuring, the shift towards or away from seats in the pricing model. And my guidance philosophy is shifting as part of that too, and that we need to rely more on future assumptions around the evolving pricing model, and less on past performance to inform our models. We've embedded conservative assumptions around the macro, the software vertical, and the shift in pricing model away from seats. And it's safe to say that our guidance for Q2 and the rest of the year takes a more cautious approach than it did in Q1. Our updated guidance fully accounts for the existing conditions and the planned timing of our strategic initiatives. And you should think about this as a full measure revision. This is very much a proactive plan that we have had a lot that we had a lot of confidence will deliver us to a place of more durable, efficient growth sooner than the status quo. And then on the on the revenue accounting implications of this shift. But first, customers are pulling us in this direction. We're already a big part of the way there, but there will be new revenue accounting dynamics that come along with it. I don't expect the scope to change, but customers on more variable consumption focus plans, it will still roll up into that ACB number. From a technical perspective, with pre-committed consumption, we'll need to make an assumption around breakage and then predict and monitor customer usage patterns to match the satisfaction of performance obligation. What that means is that could introduce some quarter-to-quarter noise in revenue recognition, which, again, we've accounted for in the updated guidance.

Very comprehensive answer. Thank you for that, Graham. Maybe just one follow-up for you, Henry. I feel like, you know, from the very beginnings of covering Zoom Info since the IPO, the one thing that hasn't changed is the quality of your data asset, and that really stands out above all else that's out there on the market. Can you just once again for us, I know you said a lot about it, but it wouldn't hurt to hear, you know, to, what do they say, repetition doesn't ruin the prayer. We'd love to hear more about why, given how unique and comprehensive your data asset is, that you're not able to perhaps better weather this moment? And whatever you can tell us to just really bring that point home would really be helpful. Thank you.

Yeah, I think the biggest thing for us today is that our data asset has historically been trapped underneath a SaaS application, which obviously for the first 18, 19 years of our operating history was exactly where our customers wanted to consume it. And really over the last 12 months, customers have been more inclined to want our data assets to be flexible and available throughout a number of other interfaces. We've always had an API, but it was usually, it was mainly deployed at really high sophisticated, highest end of our strategic customers. And that could have been done with a lot of handholding. In today's world, the agent, Claude, needs to just understand our API documentation and plug it in seamlessly without ever having to talk to a human. And so we've spent really the last 18 months rebuilding the data infrastructure that delivers that data anywhere that a customer wants it. If you wanted intent data, you know, a year ago, you would have had to get that intent data through the SaaS interface inside of Copilot or SalesOS. Today, you can get it in an API. You could get it through the MCPs. And so it's really just the flexibility of making that data much more available to our customers wherever they want to work, which has changed where they want to work, has changed, you know, obviously much more significantly than the the necessity for our data and the accuracy of our data.

Really helpful. Thank you so much, guys.

Thank you. Our next question goes from Alex Zukin with Wolf Research. You may proceed.

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question. I guess maybe in the spirit of channeling my inner Brad, I'm going to ask a couple of similar questions. It feels like on the call you're walking through maybe a couple of different issues simultaneously, longer sales cycles, particularly in software, an acceleration in your push to transform and get out of the lower end of the market, as well as accelerate the shift to consumption from seed.

So if you're guiding to exit the year at kind of a negative 8% growth,

and saying you're going to return to growth in fiscal 27, like how much of the headwind from which of those parts is embedded in that guide?

And like where do you feel like there's maybe a little less risk because it's you guys pushing versus pulling? Yeah, I think you've got it right in that we're, you know, we're looking at the software vertical and some of the softness there coming out of the quarter the down market right-sizing, that's probably the largest part of the guidance revision this year is that we can pretty scientifically say we take out X resources down market and that creates Y of a ACV headwind this year. I think the biggest question that we're modeling is the pricing transformation. And as we kind of accelerate that this year, that will become the larger part of the story next year. As we model that, there might be instances where there are lower entry points. And the question that we're modeling is, when do we get the upside, whether it's intra-contract from upsell opportunity or at renewal from mitigated downsell pressure? And I'd also add, Alex, you've heard us talk over the last

two years about our push to go upmarket. And the retention characteristics and the growth characteristics in our upmarket customer base are significantly better than our downmarket customer base, which is diluting the upmarket performance. And we think this is a moment to rip the band-aid and really lean into that motion. You look at our operations business, which is now just under 20% of our overall ACV, that business is growing 20% year over year. It's the highest profitability part of our business, and it directly correlates to customers needing more and more of our data as they continue to build internal AI applications and need to get their data foundation right. This feels like the moment to lean into that in a more aggressive way than we have historically. And on the guidance, we're being super conservative with it because we recognize there are a number of moving pieces to the rest of the year.

Got it.

And then maybe, Henry, to the point that you made earlier about some of your motions, particularly unleashing the data asset, it was particularly striking that at the same time as you're calling out some headwinds in broader software and AI anxiety, two of your most iconic wins I think that you cited in the quarter were with Sierra and another AI unicorn. So maybe can you just help us understand how, I assume those two companies are massively expanding seat count. So how are those two iconic wins specifically leveraging some of that kind of leading edge functionality that you're talking about?

And what do those either expands or lands look like relative to previous cohorts?

I think the big difference that we're seeing is customers, those AI native customers are building their own internal revenue workflows. You know, in software, you have a very opinionated interface that you provide your customers and it's opinionated because you have product managers who deeply understand the domain and they try to build a flexible enough interface or, you know, a generic interface that customers across a broad spectrum of types and revenue workflows can get value out of. The AI natives are building their own revenue workflows. They're building their own interfaces. They're bringing in their own first party data. They're building in their own unique workflows. Every company's go-to-market workflow is a little bit different than the next company's, but every company's go-to-market workflow requires data on companies, requires data on contacts, requires hierarchy and subsidiary mapping so that you could do territory segmentation and planning. And so these companies are coming in and they're saying, we have a revenue workflow, we built it, we've built a prospecting workflow, but we need data to plug into that. And so these deals are much heavier on the data consumption side and much lighter on the seats. And we see that. Thank you. as a big opportunity, an opportunity to embrace AI and really swing for a massive opportunity here. And we think we're uniquely positioned to capture that. You know, if we were a traditional SaaS business, seats are not transferable into an LLM. It's very difficult to expand the surface area of where your product gets monetized, but we are underlying a light SaaS interface is our data asset, which is the most important part of our business. And we're going to make that really available to anybody, anywhere a go-to-market workflow runs. And we're uniquely positioned to be able to do that.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from Ray Malenstra with Barclays. You may proceed.

Hey, thank you. Quick question. What you see at the moment in software, is that the software companies are reducing their field capacity, or is it that they are actively building the front end like the AI guys are doing? Because the question becomes, will it eventually then spill to other industries when they realize how the world is evolving? And I had one follow-up for Graham.

All right. It's a little bit of both, but I think at this point, we are happy to see it spill over into other industries because we think the bigger upside opportunity here is consumption of our data where every go-to-market workflow runs. And so, yeah, we see it in software today and we're leaning in to capture that opportunity with much more flexible pricing and the ability to transfer seat prices into consumption of our data. But if this goes on into insurance and financial services or other segments, our APIs and MCPs and ability for our customers to use our data as a reference data architecture for all their go-to-market workflows gets better and better and better every quarter. And it's about adapting our pricing and packaging models to meet the customers where they are, where in software and sophisticated customers, they're leaning into building their own things. And we're going to show up with

consumption that they need for that so i don't view this expanding beyond software as a negative it is what we're preparing the company for yeah perfect yeah makes total sense i mean that's uh you always have a very strong data set uh from the very beginning since we first met you the and graham then if you think about guidance like how how much is that uh Is guidance implying that software is moving versus other guys are moving? Do you think about this in stages, like this year is more software and it's part of the guidance and then next year something else? Or are you going to, like this year the whole model gets flipped to consumption anyway, and so whatever other industries are doing, it doesn't matter then? Thank you.

Yeah, I don't think it's... I think there's certainly a vertical specific assumption around software. But look, we... We still see good performance in our upmarket business and our operations business, and the revision to revenue and the cost out is focused on our downmarket business, where our margin profile is the worst. The development of uncertainty on multiple fronts is the primary reason behind the guidance revision, and we want to minimize the risk of another negative revision.

Okay, perfect. Makes sense. Go back.

Thank you. Our next question goes from Alan Berkovsky with PTIG. You may proceed.

Hey there. Thanks for taking the question. So you have a number of large upmarket customers that spend millions on an annual basis with you. And I think the reason for the shift to consumption makes sense. But what kind of feedback and signals have you gotten that these larger customers are willing to spend the same amount, if not more, through a consumption model? And then I've got a quick follow-up.

Yeah, when you look at... the customers that spend the most with us annually, a lot of those are operations customers. And our operations business is our fastest growing business at scale, growing over 20% year over year. So we've seen not only a lack of reluctance, but increasing demand from those customers that are not on a seed-based model that are largely data access customers. And what we've seen is not only do they have better gross retention outcomes, they have significantly better net retention outcomes where they, you know, come in at an entry point and then actually buy more and more and expand their investment with zoom and fill over time.

Got it. And then Graham of your upmarket ACV growth of 5% this quarter, what is the upmarket software and non-software ACV growing and within the hundred K plus ACV customer cohort, Can you share the number of customers that declined there? What percentage of them are software companies?

Yeah, upmarket within the software portion of upmarket. Software overall was down a little bit sequentially in Q1, and that is what is kind of creating the drag, both downmarket and to some extent at the lower end of upmarket. Within the 100K logo cohort, there are not as many logos, period, but even software logos that are downselling out of that. It really was a phenomenon of having less that were upselling into the quarter. We had better net from zero new sales into the cohort. We had significantly better downsell. on the lack of downsell out of the cohort and similar churn out as well. It's really a kind of pause around incremental purchases that we saw at the end of Q3, and that was largely focused in software.

Thank you. Thank you.

Our next question comes from Billy Fitzsimmons with Piper Sandler. You may proceed.

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question here. Given the shift to more flexible pricing and packaging in the back half to better align with monetization, to better align monetization with customer value, as we think about the guidance and as that kind of flows through the model, given the commentary around how some customers may end up paying more, some may end up paying less, can you just give us the building blocks for how we should think about this guidance in the back half? And then if I could sneak in a second one, with the closing of the Israel R&D Center, can you just help us think about ZoomInfo's ability to balance investing for an AI era with kind of a lower R&D base? And does this change any of your R&D priorities for the remainder of 2026? Thank you.

Yeah.

You know, on kind of the composition of the guidance, When I look at the reduction and kind of breaking that down into the building blocks, about a quarter of that, a little bit more, is coming from the down market restructuring where we're taking the least efficient down market sales resources out and therefore, in some cases, foregoing or bringing in that inefficient down market ACV at lower price points through a PLG motion. And then a little bit less than a quarter is coming from more cautious assumptions around software. A little less than a quarter is coming from the pricing ins and outs and the revenue recognition variability with the shift towards consumption. And then the rest is just a layer of incremental conservatism.

And then, yeah, look, I think the upside versus downside

conversation as we shift the model here is really going to come down to timing and opportunity in the customer base. In Q3 and Q4, we're going to learn more about what those net new customer sales look like and what the customer base migration looks like. In some cases, there will be a balance of lower entry points that unlock upside of renewal or even intercontract. And it's just going to be a timing equation with respect to that.

On the engineering side, there are two things. One, our engineers, with the help of coding agents, are delivering significantly, multiple times more software into our platform than they ever have historically. And so we are seeing Velocity Booth. I mentioned all of the MCPs and integrations that we did over the last eight weeks. Just one of those would have taken us eight weeks best case a year ago. And so we're seeing real engineering efficiency coming from our leveraging of AI internally at ZoomInfo. I think the second thing is there are a number of roles that we won't have as much necessity for. We don't need as many front end developers as we did before. We're able to build a front end in a really simple way. And where a lot of focus historically was on the front end, more of the focus is now on the data infrastructure, the back end, and the flexibility of that data to get plugged into a number of places. So it's not as necessary for us to have as many front end application developers as we've had historically.

Thank you. Appreciate the granular detail on the guide.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the city of Panigrahi with Mizuho. You may proceed.

Just to follow up to that earlier question, the roles you, I mean, 600 jobs, roles that you reduced, what's the mix of that in different functions, go-to-market versus R&D or any other back-office functions?

Sure. It's mostly going to be R&D. You can think about it as like about half R&D. And then the rest of it is mostly going to be downmarket sales and marketing resources. So you can think about it as probably 90% R&D and downmarket sales and marketing. And then there's some G&A that makes up another 10% or so of the roles.

Okay. And then... And NRR has been flat at 90% now for the last three quarters. As you are looking into further this deliberate shift away from the seed-based pricing and also some kind of churn you're expecting in software, what's the floor on NRR in 2026? And does it have to bounce back as you are thinking about growth to reaccelerate?

Yeah, I think the bounce back after, you know, potentially some near-term headwind here would certainly be the most important thing to, you know, as part of that return to growth. But with some of the, you know, with the proactive shift in the pricing model, there may be some regression in overall net revenue retention, and that's certainly reflected in the guidance. And I think we feel really confident about that. offsetting that quickly thereafter with upside from the shift towards a consumption model.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from DJ Hines with Canaccord Genuity. You may proceed.

Hey, thank you, guys. Henry, we've talked a lot about more flexible pricing. I think that makes a ton of sense. Do you also have to get more aggressive in lower prices to reaccelerate demand?

I think that what we're thinking, DJ, is not creating artificial barriers to get in and leverage our data, particularly in the down market, where we have an opportunity to bring a customer on for lower prices, but align that customer to value through consumption of our data, either in our platform or in an LLM. And so we want to make it really easy to transact with us. One of the core assumptions of this shift is that our PLG motion drives more opportunity down market by removing platform fees, seat minimums, and aligning towards consumption, which we think is better aligned to what the customer is looking for.

Yeah. Okay. And then, Graham, a follow-up for you. Just based on how you're forecasting the business today, when do you expect to see a return to positive quarterly sequential revenue growth? I'd say we expect growth to be sustainably positive by the second half of 2027 at the latest, with healthier underpinnings and nearly unconstrained upside to our consumption TAM.

Yep. Okay. Very clear. Thanks.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Parker Lane with Stifel. You may proceed.

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question. I believe you said it was the third quarter that you'll introduce the platform fee with prepackaged credits. So just to be clear, for customers that have upgraded in 1Q and 2Q or will have a renewal that extends beyond the second half of the year, are you going to be negotiating under this new pricing structure and maybe trying to shift them to a new model ahead of time, or is it only going to happen at renewal? And then second, do you anticipate less willingness to engage in similar durations? Do you think people will compress their duration at all in response to how fast things are moving out there?

Yeah, I think we're going to have an opportunity to work with our customers to shift them into this pricing model regardless of renewal date. It's not going to be a forced shift. But in Q3, from a new business perspective, we'll be leading with this for the first time. And then with the customer base, we're going to meet the customer kind of where the value is, and there's going to be opportunities to shift them to this more variable pricing and away from kind of the more fixed model. And we see a lot of upside for the customer and for us in doing so.

Got it.

Thank you. What was the second question, Parker?

It was on duration. If you see any less willingness to engage in similar durations, particularly those that have been multi-year.

You know, we haven't seen that with the operations business where, you know, that significantly has significantly longer duration than some of our other products. And I would expect that we won't see a headwind on that front.

Got it. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Jackson Ader with KeyBank. You may proceed.

Great. Hello. This is Nate Ruiz. I'm for Jackson Ader. Thank you for taking our questions. So regarding the studio and workspace, what's been the initial customer feedback on these tools so far, specifically for workspace since it's newer? And how do you expect these tools to attach to contracts going forward? Thank you.

Yeah, initial, you know, we did a much more heavy push this quarter on GTM Studio. And we introduced it to about a quarter of our customers who are now in trials of Studio. There are hands-on trials with their account managers and solution consultants. They're consuming data within Studio. And then we're moving a lot of those customers to paid customers of Studio. And so we feel really good about the feedback we're hearing there. There are use cases that weren't accomplishable inside of legacy ZoomInfo platform that they're now, that they now are able to do inside of Studio that they wouldn't have been able to do before. And we've layered AI inside of Studio and all of that is really designed to drive consumption. we expect studio to be a meaningful driver of consumption of our data uh through that platform and so that's really where we're focused yeah that's a similar model where instead of a platform fee you're paying for consumption to come into studio and your uh your upfront fees translate into consumption data and ai credits and so it's been really positive feedback uh It's really early still, but we feel really good about the feedback that we're hearing there. And then we continue to invest meaningful R&D dollars behind that platform as well.

Great. Super helpful. And then one more for me. As you guys transition to more of a consumption model going forward, how do you help customers get comfortable with the variable pricing who are originally used to seat-based fixed pricing? Thank you.

Yeah, generally we'll work with the customers to kind of establish guardrails around the sizing of the initial purchase. We still expect this to be, for the most part, recommitted consumption spend. So they're paying for a level of credits upfront, and when they've gone through those credits, we can sell them more. But we're really sensitive to making sure that the customers feel comfortable with that initial purchase. and certainly comfortable with the value that we're ascribing to it.

Awesome. Thanks so much, guys.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Tyler Radke with Citi. You may proceed.

Yeah, thanks for taking the question.

Just to double-click on the timing of all these changes. So I think you talked about a 12- to 18-month sort of period of transition, and Can you just remind us, are you essentially expecting all customers to be kind of migrated over to this new consumption plan by the second quarter of 2028? And is that the quarter where we see ACV growth trough and then revenue kind of follows after that?

Just walk us through the mechanics of that and anything we should keep in mind in terms of revenue recognition.

Yeah, I think the, if we're thinking about kind of the order of operations here, we, we plan to be leading the new business motion with this hybrid non-seat based model by the end of Q3 this year, as well as kicking off kind of a more formal transition for customers who, who want to move to this and who we believe will benefit from this as we get, um, And I think what we said is in 12 to 18 months, we'd like to be closer to 50-50 from a seats-based ACV versus non-seat-based ACV perspective. Right now, we're two-thirds seats and about a third non-seats. So I think shifting 15 to 17 points there over the next 12 to 18 months is our plan. We don't think that that is the kind of clock on when we get back to growth. we're you know really confident in getting back to revenue growth on an annual basis by the back half of 2027 and that would probably be a quarter or so after we're back to a um acv growth trajectory got it and how do you think about long-term gap operating margins free cash flow margins under this new model and um

Obviously, in the past, you guys have stepped up share purchases in periods where the stock is dislocated. So how do you just think about all those pieces given the announcements today?

I think the biggest thing is that we are committed to protecting and growing cash flow per share in any set of conditions.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from Brian Peterson with Raymond James. You may proceed.

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question. So, Graham, you mentioned that the operations business has longer duration. I'd love to maybe understand, you know, anything that you can share about that business in terms of in-market exposure, sales cycles, you know, how much comes in kind of net new versus cross-sell as that becomes a more important part of the business. Thanks, guys.

Sure. You know, it's still a lot of the growth in the operations business does come from existing customers, whether they're ZoomInfo customers that are cross-selling into operations or existing operations customers that are expanding their operations spend. That's where the lion's share of it comes from. The net retention and the gross retention in the operations business is better than any other business within ZoomInfo. You know, what that means is we still have a good amount of logo white space, whether they're existing Zoom info logos or not, to acquire as operations customers.

And, Brad, is there any sense for how much of that is tech or software related? You know, any help on the market mix?

It's pretty diverse. It's less, you know, software heavy than, you know, our um kind of core offerings and it's it's very heavily weighted to large enterprises across a diverse set of verticals great thanks guys thank you our next question comes from austin cole with citizens you may proceed

Great. Thanks for taking the question here. So I don't think there's been a lot of discussion about co-pilot. So I think last quarter was over 20% of total ACV. I'm just wondering if there's any update you can provide with respect to that metric or just how those renewals trended in the quarter or kind of if this shift is just transforming your overall vision for co-pilots.

I think the pricing model will certainly play into how we package and sell Copilot in the future, but Q1 was another really solid quarter for Copilot. It continues to increase as a mix of the total business, and I think it's actually one of the brighter spots for us in the quarter. What will change in the future is how we price Copilot, and you should expect that it's priced more from a prepackaged credit perspective than historically where we sold it on a seats basis.

Great.

And then maybe just as a quick follow-up here, the AI confusion and some of the macro that you discussed earlier in the call, is there anything you can share with respect to maybe how that's just trended so far kind of in April and early May and whether those trends have continued or how those have changed more recently?

Yeah, it's pretty similar to what we saw at the end of the quarter. It's not necessarily getting Not getting worse, but I think we're still in that pause phase.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you. This concludes the conference. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.