NuScale and Oklo, despite being in the same industry, are two completely different companies. I think it's wrong to say they do the same thing and invest accordingly, because they actually do different things. First, you need to understand their business models; investing simply because they're SMR companies isn't the right approach.
$SMR | NuScale is a technology licensor and module manufacturer. They design the reactor, sell the license, deliver the module, and that's it. Everything is clear and straightforward.
$OKLO | Oklo is a power operator. They build and operate their own power plants and sell electricity to their customers through long-term power purchase agreements. Like other SaaS companies, they have a revenue model (ARR).
NuScale's revenue model is based on equipment sales and engineering services. Oklo's is based on recurring power contracts with near-zero churn. Time will tell which one has a more defensible position, but that's the difference in their business models. I find both valuable, but Oklo is a step ahead for me. Since their revenue models differ, their customers naturally differ as well. Oklo's customers are hyperscale data center operators like $Meta, Switch, and Equinix. These customers have signed the "Bring Your Own Power" commitment, are required to be off-grid, and Oklo's behind-the-meter architecture addresses this need perfectly. NuScale's customers, on the other hand, are public institutions like TVA and governments like Romania. These customers are more stable and larger-scale, but their decision-making processes are slower, regulatory pressure is high, and cost-sensitive, as CFPP demonstrates.
The difference between the two companies is very clear in the fuel cycle issue. Oklo converts its own waste fuel into HALEU, establishing source independence. NuScale uses conventional enriched uranium and has supply chain dependency, especially like many countries dependent on Russia. This difference will directly affect pricing power, especially during periods of high geopolitical tension, in my opinion.
Another issue is commissioning, where Oklo is ahead. Oklo insists on its 2027-2028 target for the first commercial reactor, while NuScale maintains its 2030 delivery target. A difference of two to three years is not insignificant in this sector, especially considering the current AI power crisis. The early bird gets the worm.
$SMR's greatest advantage lies in the regulatory side. Oklo is still making progress in the NRC licensing process, but not as much as SMR. NuScale has only one approved design. This is a risk factor for Oklo and a real advantage for NuScale (NRC approval doesn't mean everything is complete).
In terms of revenue, $SMR has some revenue, while $OKLO has none. Both are doing, and will continue to do, a lot of equity dilution. These are essentially startups; if there's no revenue, there's equity payment, which means a lot of executive sell-offs. In theory, both have very good goals. Be an investor who invests a small amount and doesn't get discouraged until the time comes, otherwise they'll mess with your psychology until they generate revenue.
The information, comments and recommendations contained herein are not within the scope of investment consultancy. Investment consultancy services are provided within the framework of the investment consultancy agreement to be signed between brokerage firms, portfolio management companies, banks that do not accept deposits and customers. The comments in this article are only my personal comments and these comments may not be appropriate for your financial situation and risk return. For this reason, investments should not be made based on the information and comments in my articles.
