Veeva Systems Inc. (VEEV) 2027 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us. Welcome to Veeva Systems' fiscal 2027 first-quarter results conference call.

各位好。感謝各位加入我們。歡迎參加 Veeva Systems 2027 會計年度第一季財報電話會議。

After today's prepared remarks, we will host a question-and-answer session. (Operator Instructions)

在今天的預先準備發言之後，我們將進行問答環節。（接線員指示）

I will now hand the conference over to Gunnar Hansen, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Gunnar, please go ahead.

我現在把會議交給投資人關係資深總監 Gunnar Hansen。Gunnar，請開始。

Good afternoon and welcome to Veeva's fiscal 2027 first-quarter earnings conference call for the quarter ended April 30, 2026.

各位下午好，歡迎參加 Veeva 2027 會計年度第一季（截至 2026 年 4 月 30 日止季度）財報電話會議。

As a reminder: We posted prepared remarks on Veeva's Investor Relations website, just after 1:00 PM Pacific, today. We hope you have had a chance to read them before the call.

提醒各位：我們已於今日太平洋時間下午 1:00 過後不久，在 Veeva 投資人關係網站上發布預先準備的發言內容。我們希望各位在會議前已經有機會閱讀。

Today's call will be used primarily for Q&A. With me, today, for Q&A are Peter Gassner, our Chief Executive Officer; Paul Shawah, EVP, Strategy; and Brian Van Wagener, our Chief Financial Officer.

今天的電話會議將主要用於問答。今天與我一同參與問答的有：執行長 Peter Gassner、策略執行副總裁 Paul Shawah，以及財務長 Brian Van Wagener。

During this call, we may make forward-looking statements regarding trends; our strategies; and the anticipated performance of the business, including guidance regarding future financial results.

在本次電話會議中，我們可能會就趨勢、我們的策略，以及業務的預期表現（包括對未來財務結果的指引）發表前瞻性陳述。

These forward-looking statements will be based on our current views and expectations; and are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ materially.

這些前瞻性陳述係基於我們目前的觀點與預期，並受各種風險與不確定性影響。我們的實際結果可能會有重大差異。

Please refer to the risks listed in our earnings release and the risk factors included in our most recent filing on Form 10-K. Forward-looking statements made during the call are being made, as of today, June 3, 2026, based on the facts available to us today.

請參閱我們新聞稿中列示的風險，以及我們最近一次提交的 Form 10-K 文件中所載的風險因素。本次電話會議中的前瞻性陳述係截至今日（2026 年 6 月 3 日）並基於我們目前可得的事實所作。

If this call is replayed or viewed after today, the information presented during the call may not contain current or accurate information. Veeva disclaims any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements.

若本次電話會議在今日之後被重播或觀看，會議中所呈現的資訊可能不再是最新或準確資訊。Veeva 不承擔更新或修訂任何前瞻性陳述之義務。

We may discuss our guidance on today's call. But we will not provide any further guidance or updates on our performance during the quarter, unless we do so in a public forum.

我們可能會在今天的電話會議中討論我們的指引。但除非在公開場合進行，我們不會在季度期間提供任何進一步的指引或績效更新。

On the call, we may also discuss certain non-GAAP metrics that we believe aid in the understanding of our financial results. A reconciliation to comparable GAAP metrics can be found at today's earnings release and in the supplemental investor presentation, both of which are available on our website.

在本次電話會議中，我們也可能討論某些我們認為有助於理解財務結果的非 GAAP 指標。與可比 GAAP 指標的調節表可在今日的財報新聞稿及補充投資人簡報中找到，兩者皆可於我們網站取得。

With that, thank you for joining us. I will turn the call over to Peter.

以上，感謝各位加入。我將把電話會議交給 Peter。

Thank you, Gunnar. Welcome, everyone, to the call.

謝謝你，Gunnar。各位好，歡迎參加本次電話會議。

We had a strong start to the year, delivering results ahead of our guidance. Total revenue in the quarter was $883 million, with non-GAAP operating income of $395 million.

我們在今年有一個強勁的開局，交出優於指引的成果。本季總營收為 8.83 億美元，非 GAAP 營業利益為 3.95 億美元。

Our execution continues strong across the business. It's an exciting time for Veeva and for life sciences, overall, as we execute against a clear vision for industry AI.

我們在各項業務上的執行力持續強勁。對 Veeva 以及整體生命科學產業而言，這是一個令人振奮的時刻，因為我們正依循清晰的產業 AI 願景推進。

We'll now open up the call to your questions.

現在我們開放各位提問。

We will now begin the question-and-answer session.

我們現在開始問答環節。

(Operator Instructions)

（接線員指示）

Joe Vruwink, Baird.

Joe Vruwink，Baird。

Great. Thanks for taking my question this afternoon.

很好。感謝今天下午讓我提問。

I was hoping to go into a bit more detail on Veeva Falcon. This certainly seems more complex and consequential in scope. I think you called it disruptive in the remarks.

我希望更深入了解一下 Veeva Falcon。這看起來在範疇上更複雜、影響也更重大。我想你們在發言中稱它具有顛覆性。

Can you maybe expand on what this product is targeting and how you envision customers operating in drug development with, maybe, now this interplay between Vault -- the Vault standard agent and Falcon?

你們能否進一步說明這個產品鎖定的目標，以及你們如何設想客戶在藥物開發中運作——也許現在會在 Vault（Vault 的標準代理）與 Falcon 之間形成某種互動？

Hey. This is Peter. I'll pick that one.

嗨，我是 Peter。我來回答這題。

Yeah. There's a lot of things to unpack there. What you're seeing is the next chapter of Veeva in our industry class. We used to talk about applications, data, and consulting to make the industry more efficient and effective.

是的，這裡面有很多層面可以拆解。你們看到的是 Veeva 在我們產業級（industry class）定位上的下一個篇章。過去我們談的是應用程式、資料與顧問服務，讓產業更有效率、更有效能。

Now, we're talking about software, AI, data, and consulting, right? Falcon, specifically, is at the agent layer. That's agentic labor so fully replacing [arts] -- jobs that people used to do.

現在我們談的是軟體、AI、資料與顧問服務，對吧？Falcon 具體而言是在代理（agent）層。那是代理式勞動（agentic labor），也就是完全取代人們過去做的工作——完全替代[arts]——人們以前做的那些工作。

People used to do these jobs using our applications. Now, we'll deliver the agentic labor to do that.

人們過去是透過我們的應用程式來做這些工作。現在，我們將提供代理式勞動來完成這些工作。

It's a big new area for Veeva. It's something we haven't done before. That's why it's disruptive.

這對 Veeva 來說是一個很大的新領域，是我們以前沒有做過的事。這就是為什麼它具有顛覆性。

Those agents have to become users of our applications, which means our applications have to become very good in operating at a headless manner.

這些代理必須成為我們應用程式的使用者，這意味著我們的應用程式必須非常擅長以無介面（headless）的方式運作。

Now, at the same time, we have agents inside of the Vault applications. That's Vault AI inside of the applications. That's where when people are actually using the application because there's definitely things that people still need to do in our applications.

同時，我們在 Vault 應用程式內也有代理。那就是在應用程式內的 Vault AI。當人們實際使用應用程式時——因為確實仍有一些事情需要人們在我們的應用程式中完成——這就派上用場。

That's where the AI agents can help them do it more efficiently, much like you might use ChatGPT or Gemini at your work. Okay. That helps you do it more efficiently.

在那裡，AI 代理可以幫助他們更有效率地完成工作，就像你在工作中使用 ChatGPT 或 Gemini 一樣。好，這能讓你做得更有效率。

But, for life sciences, because it's specific, what they do; and some of it is a bit standardized due to regulations and just efficiency concerns, some of those jobs or slices of people's jobs, our agents will just do those for them.

但是，對生命科學而言，因為其工作內容具有專業性；而且其中一部分因法規與效率考量而相對標準化，我們的代理將直接替他們完成其中一些工作或工作切片。

That's never something that we set out to do, when Veeva started. Why? Because there was not technology available. There was not probabilistic technology available to do this. There was no AI that could do this.

這從來不是 Veeva 創立時就打算做的事。為什麼？因為當時沒有可用的技術。沒有可用的機率式（probabilistic）技術來做到這點。沒有能做到這件事的 AI。

Now, there is. That's why you see Veeva leaning into this new market.

現在有了。這就是你看到 Veeva 積極投入這個新市場的原因。

Brian Peterson, Raymond James.

Brian Peterson，Raymond James。

Hi, you guys. Thanks for taking the question.

嗨，各位。感謝讓我提問。

Maybe, just to follow-up on that: As we think about pharma appetite for AI applications, more broadly, I'm curious what areas you think they lean into first; and how we should think about the transition from traditional SaaS applications to AI in pharma.

也許接續剛才的話題：當我們更廣泛地思考製藥公司對 AI 應用的興趣時，我很好奇你認為他們會先投入哪些領域；以及我們應該如何看待製藥產業從傳統 SaaS 應用轉向 AI 的過程。

Peter, I'd love to just get your perspective on that. Thanks, guys.

Peter，我很希望聽聽你的看法。謝謝各位。

Well, I would say it's not that they're thinking mainly about transition from applications into AI applications, what they're really leaning into is this new technical architecture. We call it the map architecture of models, agents, and applications.

嗯，我會說他們主要不是在思考從應用程式轉換成 AI 應用程式；他們真正投入的是這種新的技術架構。我們稱之為模型、代理與應用程式（models, agents, and applications）的 MAP 架構。

The applications that they get from you, they're looking for them to be more efficient; to have AI in there and help the users.

他們從你這裡取得的應用程式，他們希望更有效率；希望內建 AI 來協助使用者。

What they really want to get to be is an agentic biopharma so that agents can do a lot of the work. And so the humans can do the more higher-value work. Of course, to do that, they leverage models like Anthropic or Gemini.

他們真正想達成的是「代理式生物製藥」（agentic biopharma），讓代理能完成大量工作，讓人類去做更高價值的工作。當然，為了做到這點，他們會運用像 Anthropic 或 Gemini 這樣的模型。

To put it in perspective: There's -- I don't know the exact number -- I (inaudible), off the top of my head -- but let's just say there's 100 million documents collected from clinical research sites around the world, every year, having to do with clinical trials.

提供一個視角：每年全球臨床研究站點會收集——我不知道確切數字——我（聽不清）臨時想到——但就假設每年有 1 億份與臨床試驗相關的文件被收集。

They have to be checked for quality. They have to be sorted into the right places. That's work that agents can do.

這些文件必須做品質檢查，必須分類並放到正確的位置。這些工作代理可以做。

It's difficult, specific work. But we can make agents that are very specific on that.

這是困難且高度專業的工作。但我們可以打造在這方面非常專精的代理。

Agents that take in a bunch of free text via e-mail or other channels and have to sort it out to see, is this a product complaint? If so, how to handle that and categorize that.

例如，代理接收透過電子郵件或其他管道傳來的大量自由文字，必須加以整理判斷：這是不是產品客訴？如果是，該如何處理並如何分類。

Or no, this is an adverse event. This is an issue with a medicine making somebody potentially ill. Okay, well, what is that illness? Is that a headache or a throbbing headache? How serious is that? Is that involved in a clinical trial? What drug is that involved with?

或者不是，這是一個不良事件（adverse event）。這是某種藥物讓人可能生病的問題。好，那是什麼疾病？是頭痛還是搏動性頭痛？嚴重程度如何？是否涉及臨床試驗？涉及的是哪一種藥？

We will make agents to do that -- to those very standard things. This is an area where I'm enthused because Veeva can lead.

我們會打造代理來做這些——做那些非常標準化的事情。這個領域讓我很振奮，因為 Veeva 可以領先。

This is where -- just like for cloud applications, you got the very specific -- industry-specific cloud applications could add tremendous value, if you went to the last mile and solved the thing.

這就像——就像雲端應用一樣，你有非常特定的——產業專屬的雲端應用，如果你能走到最後一哩、把問題真正解決，就能創造巨大的價值。

In industry-specific agents, agentic labor, we may be able to go the last mile and make specific agents that just do the thing for life sciences. Because we'll go to that last mile and make it work.

在產業專屬代理、代理式勞動方面，我們也許能走到最後一哩，打造真正為生命科學「把事情做完」的專用代理。因為我們會走到最後一哩，讓它真正可用。

We may make agents that are better safety-case processors and more reliable than humans. That's a h*** of a lot of work.

我們可能打造出在處理安全性個案（safety case）方面比人類更好、更可靠的代理。那是非常非常大量的工作。

But we have a structural advantage to do that because we're deep in life sciences. We have the consulting in life sciences. We have the applications that those agents can use.

但我們在這方面有結構性的優勢，因為我們深耕生命科學。我們在生命科學領域有顧問服務。我們也有那些代理可以使用的應用程式。

It's the same reason why Claude is getting very good at Claude Code: because they have the agent -- the coding agent -- and they have the model. They have two layers.

這也是為什麼 Claude 在 Claude Code 上變得非常強的原因：因為他們同時有代理——也就是程式碼代理——以及模型。他們有兩層。

We don't have a model we use. But we have applications and agents. That is a structural advantage. I do want to emphasize, again, the consulting because a lot of this is about change management.

我們沒有使用自己的模型。但我們有應用程式和代理。這就是結構性的優勢。我也想再次強調顧問服務，因為這裡面很大一部分其實是變革管理。

Ken Wong, Oppenheimer.

Ken Wong，Oppenheimer。

Brian, I wanted to just touch on the R&D business real quick. It looks like a really strong start to Q1, potentially outpacing the full-year guide by a couple of points, yet only raised the full year by $5 million.

Brian，我想很快談一下研發（R&D）業務。看起來第一季開局非常強勁，可能比全年指引高出幾個百分點，但全年只上調了 500 萬美元。

Can you provide some context into the rest of the year? Is that conservatism? Is there something that we're not seeing around the corner there?

你能否提供一些對於今年其餘時間的背景說明？這是保守嗎？還是有什麼我們在前方看不到的因素？

Yeah. Hey, Ken.

是的。嗨，Ken。

I think, first off, we are really happy with the growth of R&D in Q1. It's a healthy business overall in Dev Cloud and Quality Cloud -- very long way to go in that business.

我想首先，我們對第一季研發業務的成長非常滿意。Dev Cloud 和 Quality Cloud 整體而言都是健康的業務——這個業務還有很長的路要走。

I think the main factor you're seeing there is the same dynamic that we called out at the start of the year, which is we've got a number of products that are very large but are also early in their life cycle: eCOA, RTSM, [UC], Safety, LIMS.

我認為你看到的主要因素，和我們在年初提到的同樣動態一致：我們有一些產品規模很大，但也仍處於生命週期的早期階段：eCOA、RTSM、[UC]、Safety、LIMS。

And so we're seeing those products scale and grow. But they're still early in their scaling. You're seeing that factor drive the full-year growth.

因此我們看到這些產品在擴張與成長。但它們仍在擴張的早期階段。你看到的這個因素正在推動全年成長。

But pleased with the progress that we're making, with the momentum coming out of Q1 and what we see for the balance of the year.

不過我們對目前取得的進展感到滿意，對第一季結束後的動能，以及我們對今年剩餘時間的展望也感到樂觀。

Alexei Gogolev, JP Morgan.

Alexei Gogolev，JP Morgan。

Glad to hear you had another strong quarter for Crossix. What did you see in Crossix activity in the quarter in terms of demand, deal size, mix, and verticals?

很高興聽到 Crossix 又有一個強勁的季度。就本季而言，你們在 Crossix 的活動中看到哪些面向的變化：需求、交易規模、組合，以及垂直領域？

How should we think about growth durability through the year? Specifically, what's driving the share gains that you called out?

我們該如何看待今年內成長的持續性？具體來說，你提到的市占率提升是由什麼驅動的？

Hey, Alexei. This is Paul.

嗨，Alexei。我是 Paul。

Really strong quarter, with another continued strong quarter with Crossix. But, just take a step back and think about the overall market, digital is a very healthy end market.

Crossix 本季非常強勁，延續了先前的強勢表現。不過先退一步看整體市場，數位端是一個非常健康的終端市場。

Pharma companies are spending more and more in the digital space because there's more channels. They're making more investments in those markets. That's really good for Crossix over the long-term.

製藥公司在數位領域的投入越來越多，因為通路更多了。他們在這些市場加大投資。這對 Crossix 的長期發展非常有利。

You'll see fluctuations, quarter by quarter. But it's a really healthy market for us. We are investing a lot in the product.

你會看到季度之間的波動。但對我們而言，這是一個非常健康的市場。我們也在產品上投入很多。

I saw some of this at our summit, where, at our summit, we had a lot of new innovation with Crossix, measuring new channels, like OpenEvidence; as an example, [Meta]. Those are things that we didn't historically do.

我在我們的峰會上也看到一些例子：在峰會上，我們針對 Crossix 推出了很多新的創新，去衡量新的通路，例如 OpenEvidence；再比如說，[Meta]。這些都是我們過去歷史上沒有做的事情。

We didn't have to measure OpenEvidence before because it wasn't a thing. Now, it's a thing. Crossix is doing that.

以前我們不需要衡量 OpenEvidence，因為那時候它還不存在。現在它成為一個通路了。Crossix 正在做這件事。

We're innovating across the product in a really, really deep way. That's driving market share gains for us.

我們在產品上以非常、非常深入的方式持續創新。這正在推動我們的市占率提升。

I'm really pleased with the execution in Crossix and a lot of the progress we're making. I expect that to be a durable growth business for us over the long term.

我對 Crossix 的執行力以及我們取得的許多進展感到非常滿意。我預期這會是我們長期具備持續成長性的業務。

Riishi Jaluria, RBC.

Riishi Jaluria，RBC。

Oh. Wonderful. Thanks so much for taking my questions.

喔，太好了。非常感謝讓我提問。

Just wanted to drill a little bit more into Falcon. I think one thing that we've seen increasingly in this AI era versus the SaaS and cloud era is there's more desire for customization, especially as a result of how flexible these tools have become.

我想再更深入問一下 Falcon。我認為我們在 AI 時代相較於 SaaS 與雲端時代看到的一點是：對客製化的需求更高，特別是因為這些工具變得更具彈性。

How do you think about the opportunity, not just to build your own custom Falcon agents to solve industry-specific problems but also give your customers and your partners the ability to build heavily customized, heavily tailored solutions for the unique problems that they may have and open up a little bit more of a platform story?

你如何看待這個機會：不僅是打造你們自己的客製 Falcon 代理來解決特定產業問題，也讓你們的客戶與合作夥伴能夠建立高度客製、非常貼合其獨特問題的解決方案，並把平台故事再打開一些？

Thanks so much.

非常感謝。

Rishi, this is Peter.

Rishi，我是 Peter。

For Falcon, the actual effort there is taking that path less traveled. That's enough platform for us to build and operate standard agents to actually solve the problem for the industry. It's not really a platform for customers to develop their custom agents.

就 Falcon 而言，我們實際上是在走一條較少人走的路。對我們來說，這已經是足夠的平台，讓我們能夠建置並營運標準代理，真正為產業解決問題。它並不是一個讓客戶開發自訂代理的平台。

For custom agents that live inside of our applications, of course, they can use Vault AI for that. For custom agents that are outside the applications, there are many agent-building tools. That will dip into the Veeva applications operating in a headless manner.

至於在我們應用程式內部運作的自訂代理，當然他們可以使用 Vault AI 來做。至於在應用程式外部的自訂代理，市面上有很多代理建置工具。那會以無頭（headless）的方式切入 Veeva 應用程式的運作。

But, now, with Falcon, we're not making AI tooling. We're actually agentic labor: to solve the problem. We are the believers in simplification and standardization of the industry. That's how the industry will grow. Veeva will grow along with it.

但現在，透過 Falcon，我們不是在做 AI 工具。我們是在提供代理式勞動（agentic labor）：用來解決問題。我們相信簡化與標準化產業。產業會因此成長，Veeva 也會隨之成長。

I think, Rishi, the thing to parallel with is, in 2012, for the first time, we laid out our first visions for Development Cloud. 2014, they got sharper. In 2016, it really became apparent what we were doing.

我想，Rishi，可以類比的是：2012 年，我們第一次提出 Development Cloud 的願景。2014 年，願景更清晰。2016 年，大家真正看出我們在做什麼。

We were trying to simplify, standardize, and integrate the tech of the development area of life sciences. That's not anything that anybody asked us for, right? That's a vision that we have. That's not anything that anybody's tried to do before.

我們試圖簡化、標準化並整合生命科學研發領域的技術。這不是任何人要求我們做的，對吧？這是我們自己的願景。也不是以前有人嘗試做過的事。

Falcon is the same thing. It's the same magnitude of disruptive innovation. It's not giving tooling to people to design agents. This is to designing and operating the standard agents for the industry, rather than the industry having to hire humans for those specific jobs.

Falcon 也是同樣的事情。它具有同等量級的顛覆式創新。它不是把工具交給人們去設計代理，而是為產業設計並營運標準代理，讓產業不必為那些特定工作去雇用人力。

That way, humans can do the more important things. The industry can produce more medicines, at the end of the day.

如此一來，人類就能去做更重要的事情。最終，產業能夠研發出更多藥物。

If that's how the industry grows, if they can get more of the right medicines to the right patients -- because that doesn't always happen today. If that can happen, that's how the industry grows. Veeva grows along with it.

如果產業能以這種方式成長，如果他們能把更多正確的藥物送到正確的病人手上——因為今天並不總是如此——如果能做到，那就是產業成長的方式。Veeva 也會隨之成長。

I was -- when we're starting off something big like this, we always think, we want to deliver $10 of value. If we do that, it's okay to take $5 for Veeva, right -- if we're delivering that much value?

我想——當我們啟動像這樣的大計畫時，我們總是會想：我們希望交付 10 美元的價值。如果我們能做到，那麼 Veeva 拿 5 美元也是可以的，對吧——前提是我們交付了那麼多價值？

I think Falcon is just going to deliver value. It's going to be great revenue for Veeva. But it's going to deliver value far above and beyond that for the industry. That's going to allow the industry to grow.

我認為 Falcon 將會交付價值。它會為 Veeva 帶來很好的營收。但它為產業帶來的價值將遠遠超過這些。這將使產業得以成長。

It's a disruptive thing. It's not an incremental thing or a tool.

這是一個顛覆性的事情。它不是漸進式的事情，也不是一個工具。

David Windley, Jefferies.

David Windley，Jefferies。

Thanks. Good segue. Peter, thanks for taking my question.

謝謝。銜接得很好。Peter，謝謝你回答我的問題。

How are you on Falcon? How are you pricing Falcon? How are you deciding which labor roles to address or to attack with Falcon agents?

你們在 Falcon 上的進展如何？你們如何為 Falcon 定價？你們如何決定要用 Falcon 代理去處理或攻克哪些勞動角色？

Thanks.

謝謝。

Those are two great questions. I'll take them in reverse order because the second one comes first, which labor roles are we looking to do?

這是兩個很棒的問題。我會倒過來回答，因為第二個問題其實是第一步：我們在看哪些勞動角色要做？

I think the most ripe, there, ones are actually the simplest and the highest volume. Actually, when you look inside life sciences, those are the areas where they have a tendency -- some of the companies -- to do some outsourcing today, already.

我認為最成熟、最適合切入的，其實是最簡單且量最大的那些。事實上，當你看生命科學內部，這些領域裡有些公司今天就已經傾向做一些外包。

That makes it, also -- they're used to outsourcing. Of course, they would outsource that to humans.

這也讓它更——他們已經習慣外包了。當然，他們過去是把這些工作外包給人。

In Falcon, the first ones we're looking at are processing documentation involved with clinical trials, specifically the stuff that comes from clinical sites -- the millions and millions, hundreds of millions, tens of millions of documents that come from research sites.

在 Falcon 中，我們首先關注的是處理與臨床試驗相關的文件作業，特別是來自臨床試驗中心的資料——來自研究中心的數以百萬、數以百萬，甚至上億、數千萬份文件。

They need to be collected, inspected for quality, categorized, the metadata pulled out of them, filed in eTMF the right way. That's one -- the call intake and control of documents.

這些文件需要被收集、做品質檢查、分類、擷取其中的中繼資料，並以正確方式歸檔到 eTMF。這是一個——文件的接收與控管。

Another one is the safety cases that come in: the triage; and the categorization and the collection of the safety cases.

另一個是進來的安全性個案：分流（triage）；以及安全性個案的分類與收集。

Those are the two main ones. We'll also take on regulatory health authority correspondences because that's another high-value one. There'll be more.

那是兩個主要的。我們也會承接與監管衛生主管機關的往來函件，因為那也是另一個高價值的項目。之後還會有更多。

Now, in terms of how we're going to charge for those, you can imagine, most likely, the Falcon will be charged by the document -- most likely. We haven't fully decided that.

現在，至於我們要如何對這些項目收費，你可以想像，Falcon 很可能會按文件計費——很可能。我們還沒有完全決定。

You can imagine that Safety will be most likely charged by the case. That's how that is.

你可以想像，Safety 很可能會按個案計費。就是這樣運作的。

If you have an agent, --first time I did is a very young kid outside the house: picking strawberries in the fields. Bus would pick you up. You'd go out there. They didn't pay you by the hour. They paid you by the [flat] because that's how that worked.

如果你有一個代理人——我第一次做這件事時，是個很年輕的孩子，在家外面：在田裡採草莓。巴士會來接你。你就去那裡。他們不是按小時計薪。他們是按[整批]計酬，因為那就是那樣運作的。

If we had an agent picking strawberries, they'd be paid by the flat.

如果我們有一個代理人在採草莓，他們就會按整批計酬。

Andrew DeGasperi, BNP Paribas.

Andrew DeGasperi，法國巴黎銀行（BNP Paribas）。

Yeah. Thanks for this.

是的。謝謝分享。

I wanted to ask a clarifying point you mentioned earlier and just, really, on the Veeva Falcon: Mentioning the displacement of potential roles at these larger firms, I'm just wondering, is there anything that you would consider, timing-wise, from an economics perspective?

我想釐清你先前提到的一點，主要是關於 Veeva Falcon：你提到在這些大型公司可能會取代某些職務角色，我想知道，從經濟性的角度、就時點而言，你是否有任何考量？

If, let's say, these roles were to move in another direction, do you think it could potentially cannibalize some of the revenue that you get from those customers? Or do you think it would be all accretive? Thanks.

如果假設這些角色轉向其他方向，你認為這可能會侵蝕你從這些客戶取得的部分營收嗎？還是你認為會完全是增益？謝謝。

Definitely all accretive because this is not a market we address today. We don't play in that market today. This is not type of labor or work that we supply. It's definitely going to be accretive.

絕對是完全增益，因為這不是我們今天所服務的市場。我們目前不在那個市場競爭。這不是我們提供的那種勞務或工作。肯定會是增益。

These agents, they need a system of record. You can't operate them without a system of record. It definitely doesn't cannibalize the systems of record.

這些代理人需要一個記錄系統（system of record）。沒有記錄系統就無法運作它們。這絕對不會侵蝕記錄系統的業務。

It's an excellent question. But I actually hadn't considered that. I don't see -- the future is pretty difficult to predict. But, as of now, I can't see any potential for cannibalization.

這是個很棒的問題。但我其實之前沒有想到這點。我看不出——未來很難預測。但就目前而言，我看不出任何可能的侵蝕。

Jailendra Singh, Truist Securities.

Jailendra Singh，Truist Securities。

Okay. Thank you. Thanks for taking my question.

好的。謝謝。謝謝你回答我的問題。

I want to better understand your comments about the guidance, assuming no significant changes in the macro environment. Clearly, Q1 results came in ahead of expectations.

我想更了解你對財測的評論，也就是在假設總體環境沒有重大變化的前提下。很明顯，第一季的結果優於預期。

Did you see macro trends improving in Q1 versus when you gave guidance? Now, you assume that guidance reflects trends remain at these levels.

你是否看到第一季的總體趨勢，相較於你給出財測時有所改善？現在，你假設財測反映的是趨勢維持在目前這些水準。

Just, could you give us some flavor about, in which areas you're seeing pockets of strengths? You've called out Crossix and areas where recovery is still ahead of us.

能否請你分享一些細節：你在哪些領域看到一些強勢的區塊？你提到 Crossix，以及仍有待復甦的領域。

Just give us a little bit color about the macro development.

請再多給我們一點關於總體發展的說明。

Hi, Jailendra. This is Brian. I'll take this one.

嗨，Jailendra。我是 Brian。我來回答這題。

I think, overall, what we see in the macro is an environment that is unchanged from when we gave guidance a few months ago. And so there are pockets that are always relatively stronger or weaker.

我認為，整體來看，我們看到的總體環境，與幾個月前我們給出財測時相比並沒有改變。因此，總會有一些相對較強或較弱的區塊。

But, overall, the business is performing well. Our customers are performing really well.

但整體而言，業務表現良好。我們的客戶表現也非常好。

There are times of change that they go through regulatory changes; changes in their business and the patent profile of their portfolio. But that ebbs and flows in there. They're quite adept at navigating that change.

他們有時會經歷變化，例如法規變動；其業務變化，以及其產品組合的專利到期結構。但這些在其中起起伏伏。他們非常擅長因應這些變化。

And so we continue to see a strong and healthy end market that we're selling into. We see that across the commercial, as well as the Dev Cloud and Quality side.

因此，我們持續看到我們所銷售的終端市場強勁且健康。這在商業端，以及 Dev Cloud 與 Quality 端都看得到。

We're feeling good about that. That's all factored into our guidance for the balance of the year.

我們對此感到樂觀。這些都已納入我們對今年剩餘期間的財測之中。

DJ Hynes, Canaccord.

DJ Hynes，Canaccord。

Hey. Thank you. Paul, I'm curious if you've had any update on top 20 CRM migration decisions or discussions that you're having.

嗨，謝謝。Paul，我想知道你是否有關於前 20 大 CRM 遷移決策或你們正在進行的討論的最新進展。

Related to that, I think, at one point, you had said, hey, we're going to pause on the commercial cross-sell opportunity and focus on migration first. When do you start leaning in on the cross-sell conversations with the customers that have made a decision to go with Vault?

另外，我記得你曾說過，我們會先暫停商業端的交叉銷售機會，先專注在遷移。那麼，當客戶已決定採用 Vault 之後，你們何時會開始更積極推進交叉銷售的對話？

Hey, DJ. Yeah. I can give you an update.

嗨，DJ。是的。我可以更新一下。

First, things are going really well. Just across -- broadly across all CRM, we had -- you probably just saw, over the last two weeks, we had a couple of big announcements with Teva and Merck KGaA. Those are significant wins.

首先，進展非常順利。就整體 CRM 而言，我們——你可能也看到，過去兩週我們與 Teva 和 Merck KGaA 發布了幾項重大公告。這些都是重要的勝利。

Obviously, very proud they selected us, globally. We're going to make them very successful.

當然，我們非常自豪他們在全球範圍選擇了我們。我們會讓他們非常成功。

But just (inaudible) -- maybe a clarifying point: We don't actually count them in the top 20. We built a top 20 list about five years ago. We created it. We use it across all of our products. We haven't changed it in the last five years.

但（聽不清）——也許先釐清一點：我們其實沒有把他們算在前 20 名裡。我們大約五年前建立了一份前 20 名清單。是我們自己建立的。我們在所有產品線都使用這份清單。過去五年我們都沒有更動。

That list includes the largest 17 biopharmas, which generally don't change, year by year. And then, the final three on the list, they change a little bit, annually. But we've kept our list the same. Those final three are Astellas, Biogen, and Daiichi Sankyo.

這份清單包含最大的 17 家生物製藥公司，通常每年不太會變動。然後清單最後三家，每年會有些微變化。但我們一直維持同一份清單。最後三家是 Astellas、Biogen 和第一三共（Daiichi Sankyo）。

We won Merck KGaA and Teva. But we don't count them in that top 20. The remaining four -- there's 10 wins for Veeva, so far: six for Salesforce so there's four decisions left. We expect to win the majority of those four remaining decisions.

我們拿下了 Merck KGaA 和 Teva。但我們不把它們算在那個前 20 名裡。剩下的四家——到目前為止，Veeva 已贏得 10 個案子：Salesforce 贏了 6 個，所以還剩 4 個決策。我們預期會贏下這剩餘 4 個決策中的大多數。

We're very confident in that. We have -- I'll give you maybe one stat from this year: Overall, our win rate is over 80%. We're just executing really, really well in the Vault CRM space. I expect that win rate to continue.

我們對此非常有信心。我可以給你一個今年的數據：整體而言，我們的勝率超過 80%。我們在 Vault CRM 領域的執行真的非常、非常到位。我預期這個勝率會持續。

That showed through with all of the innovation that we have. We have customers now -- over 150 customers live on Vault CRM. We've done a lot of migrations. There's over 40 migrations that we've done.

這也反映在我們所有的創新上。我們現在——已有超過 150 家客戶在 Vault CRM 上線。我們做了很多遷移，已完成超過 40 個遷移案。

We're just executing well. Now, we have customers turning on AI at Vault CRM. A lot of the innovation that we talked about, it's there; customers are using it.

我們的執行很到位。現在，我們有客戶在 Vault CRM 上啟用 AI。我們談到的許多創新都已到位；客戶正在使用。

It's just a lot of excitement. There's a lot of energy. A lot's happening in the CRM space. We're pleased where things are headed there.

整體就是非常令人振奮。有很多動能、很多能量。CRM 領域正在發生很多事。我們對那邊的發展方向感到滿意。

Charles Rhyee, TD Cowen.

Charles Rhyee，TD Cowen。

Yeah. Thanks. Paul, I just want to follow up there because I think, with the last quarter, the quarter before, you guys have indicated that you could have expected 14 of the top 20 to retain -- 13, 14.

是的，謝謝。Paul，我想接續追問，因為我記得在上一季、以及再前一季，你們曾表示，前 20 大中你們可能預期能保留——13、14 家。

Listening to your comments now, it sounds like, maybe, you are stepping back from that? Is maybe 13 the right number to think about?

聽你現在的說法，感覺你可能在淡化那個說法？是不是把 13 當作比較合理的數字？

Just maybe help us understand that part of it. I appreciate it. Thank you.

請幫我們理解這部分。我很感謝。謝謝。

Yeah. No. There's only four decisions left. They'll play out through the rest of the year. We think we're going to win the majority of them.

是的。不。只剩下 4 個決策尚未完成。它們會在今年剩餘時間陸續定案。我們認為我們會贏下其中的大多數。

All the decisions are not made. You certainly don't want to make a prediction on them before the decisions are final.

所有決策都還沒做出。在決策最終確定之前，你當然不會想先做預測。

We still feel really good. That's why I said the majority. We expect to win the majority.

我們仍然感覺非常好。所以我才說「大多數」。我們預期會贏下大多數。

Again, they'll play out through the remainder of the year.

同樣地，它們會在今年剩餘時間內陸續定案。

Jeff Garro, Stephens.

Jeff Garro，Stephens。

Yeah. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the question.

是的，午安。謝謝讓我提問。

I want to ask about the strength in professional services' revenue, both in the quarter and in the outlook. Curious what the drivers are there, whether it's just overall demand; whether it's insourcing versus outsourcing; or if it's driven by AI or other products.

我想問一下專業服務營收的強勁表現，不論是本季或展望皆然。我好奇背後的驅動因素是什麼：是整體需求？是內製相對於外包？還是由 AI 或其他產品帶動？

On that last note, if professional services' demand is, at all, a leading indicator of future monetization opportunities with some of these usage-based models in AI.

另外，關於最後那點，如果專業服務需求在某種程度上，是否可作為未來在 AI 這些按使用量計費模式下變現機會的領先指標？

Thanks.

謝謝。

Hey, Jeff, this is Brian. I'll take this one.

嗨，Jeff，我是 Brian。我來回答這題。

Really proud of the services quarter in Q1. It was a record quarter for our services team. We saw strength, really, across services and across the entire breadth of our portfolio.

我們對第一季的服務表現非常自豪。這是我們服務團隊創紀錄的一季。我們看到的強勁表現，確實是橫跨服務業務、也橫跨我們整個產品組合的廣度。

The main drivers of the outperformance were strong project execution in R&D, as well as in our business consulting team.

優於預期表現的主要驅動因素，是研發專案執行強勁，以及我們商業顧問團隊的出色表現。

But I think the main thing here is that it was not just in implementations. A lot of that outperformance was in the consulting work and the work that happens outside of implementations, including things like digital events that are completely unrelated to deployments.

但我認為這裡最主要的一點是，這不僅僅發生在導入（implementations）上。相當一部分的超預期表現來自顧問服務，以及發生在導入之外的工作，包括像是與部署完全無關的數位活動（digital events）。

We also saw some of the expected uptick from Vault CRM migrations. It contributed to some of the increase, year over year. It wasn't the main driver of top-line outperformance but a contributor to the year-over-year growth.

我們也看到 Vault CRM 遷移帶來一些符合預期的回升。它對年增有所貢獻，但並非營收端（top-line）超預期的主要驅動因素，而是年增成長的其中一項貢獻來源。

And so, all those factors, when you bunch them together, is why we generally caution against using services as a leading indicator of subscriptions. There are a lot of services that we provide, especially in business consulting, that really are not related to the underlying subscription implementations.

因此，當你把所有這些因素放在一起看，就能理解為什麼我們通常會提醒大家，不要把服務收入當作訂閱的領先指標。我們提供的許多服務，特別是商業顧問服務，確實與底層的訂閱導入並沒有直接關聯。

I wouldn't read those two together.

我不會把這兩者放在一起解讀。

Ryan MacDonald, Needham & Company.

Ryan MacDonald，Needham & Company。

Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. Congrats on the nice quarter here.

嗨，謝謝回答我的問題。恭喜本季表現不錯。

Maybe one for Peter or Paul on this. Can you just provide a bit more color on the strategic rationale around the Ostro acquisition?

這題可能想請 Peter 或 Paul 回答。能否再多補充一些關於收購 Ostro 的策略性理由？

Obviously, we're seeing doctors increasingly using AI applications to do prescription medication, drug-to-drug interaction-type questions. And so it seems to be a natural fit there.

顯然，我們看到醫師越來越常使用 AI 應用來處理處方用藥、藥物與藥物交互作用之類的問題，所以看起來這是很自然的契合。

But how do you drive visibility and awareness of Ostro within that population and, maybe, get docs out of something like an OpenEvidence or a DocsGPT?

但你們要如何在那個族群中提升 Ostro 的能見度與認知度，並且或許讓醫師從像 OpenEvidence 或 DocsGPT 這類工具轉而使用你們的方案？

And then, for Brian, as we think about the commercial subscription revenue guidance increase, how much of that was attributed to Ostro contribution? Thanks.

另外想請教 Brian，關於商業訂閱營收指引上調，當中有多少是歸因於 Ostro 的貢獻？謝謝。

Yeah, Ryan. Ostro is super exciting. The buyer of Ostro is a biopharma company. The user of Ostro is the healthcare professional or the patient.

好的，Ryan。Ostro 非常令人振奮。Ostro 的買方是生物製藥公司，而 Ostro 的使用者是醫療專業人員（HCP）或病患。

It's a brand engagement platform for biopharma companies to help HCPs and patients ask questions and get answers instantaneously; and do that in a compliant way.

它是一個品牌互動平台，提供給生物製藥公司，協助 HCP 與病患提問並即時獲得答案；而且能以合規的方式做到這點。

That's very, very hard to do. It's hard to do that at scale. It's hard to do it in a compliant way. That's exactly what Ostro does.

這件事非常、非常難做到。要大規模做到很難，要以合規方式做到也很難。而這正是 Ostro 所擅長的。

We are marketing to -- we're selling to the biopharmas. They're driving the engagement and the traffic to the patients and the healthcare professionals that use that.

我們的行銷對象是——我們的銷售對象是生物製藥公司。他們會把互動與流量導向使用該平台的病患與醫療專業人員。

Why did we do this? I talked a little bit earlier about how digital is increasing. We're seeing new channels. You mentioned OpenEvidence. OpenEvidence is important, from a number of different perspective; one, which I referenced earlier, from a measurement standpoint.

我們為什麼要做這件事？我先前提到數位化正在提升，我們也看到新的通路。你提到 OpenEvidence。OpenEvidence 從多個角度來看都很重要；其中之一，如我先前提到的，是從衡量（measurement）的角度。

As companies spend more with OpenEvidence, it's more important that you measure those channels.

當企業在 OpenEvidence 上投入更多資源時，衡量這些通路就變得更重要。

But, also, as they turn to channels like OpenEvidence for information, that's an entry point into going to a pharma company's digital site and using Ostro on that site to get information really quickly.

但同時，當他們轉向像 OpenEvidence 這樣的通路來取得資訊時，這也成為進入藥廠數位網站的入口，並在該網站上使用 Ostro 來快速取得資訊。

All these pieces, they all natively work together. This is a core part of our strategy. It unlocks better engagement with HCPs and patients.

所有這些拼圖都能原生地一起運作。這是我們策略的核心部分。它能解鎖與 HCP 與病患更好的互動。

It also unlocks something that we talk a lot about at our, --we introduced at our Commercial Summit called Commercial Evidence. You may have seen Peter refer to that in the prepared remarks.

它也能解鎖我們在——我們在 Commercial Summit 上推出、並經常談到的一個概念，叫做 Commercial Evidence（商業證據）。你可能有看到 Peter 在事先準備的發言中提到。

But this is ground-breaking. This is about understanding what HCPs and patients are thinking about -- what are they asking about? -- and getting it in an unfiltered way so that you can gain this Commercial Evidence, which can help you identify barriers to getting medicines to patients.

但這是突破性的。這是關於理解 HCP 與病患在想什麼——他們在問什麼？——並以未經過濾的方式取得，讓你能獲得這些 Commercial Evidence，進而協助你辨識把藥物送到病患手上的障礙。

It's a really exciting area. It's going to play a bigger and bigger role in Commercial Cloud, over time. We see it as a really significant acquisition and a potential long-term growth opportunity for us. It generated a lot of excitement for us at our release event.

這是一個非常令人興奮的領域。隨著時間推進，它在 Commercial Cloud 中將扮演越來越重要的角色。我們視其為一項非常重要的收購，以及對我們而言潛在的長期成長機會。在我們的發表活動上，它也引發了很大的興奮與關注。

On the second part of your question -- this is Brian -- we acquired Ostro late in Q1. We expect it to contribute about $10 million in the remaining three quarters of the year.

關於你問題的第二部分——我是 Brian——我們在第一季末收購了 Ostro。我們預期它在本年度剩餘三個季度將貢獻約 1,000 萬美元。

It's about two-thirds of the $15 million increase in commercial subs, overall, for the year.

這大約占全年商業訂閱（commercial subs）總體增加 1,500 萬美元中的三分之二。

Tyler Radke, Citi.

Tyler Radke，花旗（Citi）。

Thank you. I was wondering if you could double-click on some of the wins on the R&D; and Quality and Development Cloud.

謝謝。我想請你們再深入談談研發（R&D）以及 Quality and Development Cloud 的一些贏單。

Were there a lot of top 20s included there? Can you just talk about the pipeline, particularly in Development Cloud? I think, last quarter, you did talk about maybe a bit of an air pocket.

其中是否包含很多前 20 大客戶？也能否談談管線（pipeline），特別是 Development Cloud？我記得上季你們提到可能有點空窗期（air pocket）。

But just curious how the pipeline is shaping up for the rest of the year. Thank you.

但我想了解的是，今年剩餘時間的管線目前看起來如何。謝謝。

I'll pick that one. It's Peter.

我來回答這題。我是 Peter。

Pipeline is good. The level of engagement is pretty comprehensive from -- all the way from Veeva Basics. Small biotechs, we continue to win a lot of those that are going on Veeva Basics.

管線不錯。互動的程度相當全面——從 Veeva Basics 一路到更高階。小型生技公司方面，我們持續贏得很多採用 Veeva Basics 的客戶。

By the way, those will be some of the first consumers of things like [Talk] and our other AI solutions to (inaudible) -- right now, talking about some of the most strategic deals we've ever done.

順帶一提，這些客戶將會是像 [Talk] 以及我們其他 AI 解決方案的第一批使用者，用來（聽不清楚）——而現在，我們談的是一些我們做過最具策略性的交易。

Because the aperture and Development Cloud is just getting so much broader, with Falcon and Safety and Clinical Data Management and Clinical all working together; and Vault AI in there, as well. We're getting more and more strategic.

因為 Development Cloud 的範疇正在大幅擴大，Falcon、Safety、Clinical Data Management 與 Clinical 都能一起運作；同時也包含 Vault AI。我們正在變得越來越具策略性。

Actually, in the quarter, we didn't have any particular large top 20 wins in Development Cloud -- in the quarter. That happens, sometimes. But pipeline is strong. It happens, sometimes, where things don't align on the quarter boundaries.

其實在本季，我們在 Development Cloud 並沒有任何特別大型的前 20 大客戶贏單——就本季而言。有時候就是會這樣。但管線很強。有時候事情不會剛好對齊季度的時間邊界。

We had a number of great enterprise wins in Safety; also, in Quality. I know we had some in Clinical, as well. Really happy with the progress there.

我們在 Safety 也拿下了多個很棒的企業級贏單；Quality 方面也是。我知道 Clinical 也有一些。我對那邊的進展非常滿意。

There's definitely growing momentum that I feel in the EDC area that's -- as a result of our eSource initiative. Now, we have to prove that out first.

我確實感受到 EDC 領域的動能正在增長——這是我們 eSource 計畫帶來的結果。不過，我們必須先把它證明出來。

If you look a step back, what are we doing in Development Cloud? We're expanding its potential super broadly. I think our vision is now very clear to our customers.

如果你退一步看，我們在 Development Cloud 做的是什麼？我們正在非常大幅度地擴展它的潛在範圍。我認為我們的願景現在對客戶來說已經非常清楚。

At our R&D summit recently in Copenhagen, for Europe, it was the largest crowd we've ever had and the most excitement that we've ever had, by far.

在我們最近於哥本哈根舉辦的歐洲 R&D 峰會上，現場是我們有史以來最大的人潮，也是迄今為止最令人振奮的一次，遠遠超過以往。

Why is that? They're looking at Veeva doing an eSource initiative out to the clinical research sites to bring the data and documentation -- data, mainly -- in without any intermediary steps, right into the pharmaceutical systems. That's never been done before.

為什麼會這樣？他們看到 Veeva 正在把 eSource 計畫推向臨床研究站點，將資料與文件——主要是資料——在沒有任何中介步驟的情況下，直接導入製藥公司的系統。這以前從未有人做到過。

Then, they're looking at Falcon. Wow. That's never been done before. They're looking at Vault AI; how productive that could make them.

接著，他們看到 Falcon。哇，這以前也從未有人做到過。他們也看到 Vault AI；它能讓他們的生產力提升到什麼程度。

Plus, the growth in our application areas -- the growth we're getting in the RTSM area -- the interest there, we signed our first top 20 last quarter on that for enterprise-wide ELA and our Veeva ePRO product in the Clinical Data Management area.

再加上我們應用領域的成長——我們在 RTSM 領域的成長——以及市場對此的興趣；上季我們在該領域簽下第一家前 20 大客戶，採用企業級 ELA，以及我們在 Clinical Data Management 領域的 Veeva ePRO 產品。

I think our vision is becoming clear. It's becoming very clear that we can execute on it and integrate it.

我認為我們的願景正在變得清晰。也越來越清楚的是，我們能夠執行並把它整合起來。

Super exciting times. No particular large top 20 applications or wins to report in the quarter. But that's just a timing thing.

非常令人振奮的時刻。本季沒有特別大型的前 20 大應用或贏單可以報告，但那只是時間點的問題。

Hannah Rudoff, Piper Sandler.

Hannah Rudoff，Piper Sandler。

Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my question today. I wanted to ask another question on Falcon.

嗨，各位。謝謝今天回答我的問題。我想再問一題關於 Falcon。

On the development of that platform, just wondering what exactly is going into the next five-plus months ahead of your early adopter launch?

關於該平台的開發，我想了解在早期採用者（early adopter）上線前接下來五個多月，具體會投入哪些工作？

What has been done today and what still needs to be done; and how closely you're partnering with your customers, ahead of that launch?

目前已經完成了哪些、還需要完成哪些；以及在上線前，你們與客戶的合作會有多緊密？

Oh. Lots of things need to be done:

喔，還有很多事情要做：

Developing the platform layer, which we're doing well. Assembling the team; assembling that in a hurry. We're really much in a hurry, right?

開發平台層（platform layer），我們做得不錯。組建團隊；而且要很快地組建。我們真的非常趕，對吧？

This is disruptive technology. Falcon, for example, reports directly to me. This is our first step into digital labor. You have to operate that effectively.

這是顛覆性技術。以 Falcon 為例，它直接向我匯報。這是我們踏入數位勞動（digital labor）的第一步。你必須有效地運作它。

Back when we were the CRM company way back when, before we went public, Vault was this tiny little thing that reported directly to me. Falcon is like that.

回想我們很久以前還是一家 CRM 公司、在上市之前，Vault 當時就是一個很小的東西，直接向我匯報。Falcon 也像那樣。

We have to build the platform; hire the team; get the early customers; sign the early agreements with the early customers to use their data and documents to quality control and basically train our agents; get the first customers live and happy.

我們必須建置平台；招募團隊；取得早期客戶；與早期客戶簽署早期協議，以使用他們的資料與文件來做品質控管，基本上也用來訓練我們的代理；讓第一批客戶上線並且滿意。

It's great hard work to do, Hannah, but it's something we're very used to. It's what you do on any new product, nothing particularly different there.

Hannah，這確實是很辛苦的工作，但我們非常習慣。任何新產品都是這樣做，沒有什麼特別不同。

(multiple speakers) --

（多位發言者）--

One small one is there's a small part of it that goes a little faster than it used to. That's the actual coding of the platform: the deterministic parts.

有一個小地方是，其中有一小部分比以前快了一點。那就是平台的實際程式開發：那些確定性的部分。

There is where we can lean in and leverage things like Claude Code to do that faster than we did before.

在這裡我們可以加大投入並運用像 Claude Code 這類工具，讓速度比以前更快。

But, other than that, all parts of the cycle are actually the same.

但除此之外，整個週期的其他部分其實都一樣。

Corey DeVito, Wells Fargo.

Corey DeVito，富國銀行。

Hey. This is Stan, on for myself. There must have been some confusion, when I dialed in.

嗨。我是 Stan，我自己來提問。我撥進來的時候可能有些混淆。

Brian, I wanted to ask you, for Q1 EBIT margin, I think it arrived at 45%. You're guiding 44% for the year.

Brian，我想問一下，第一季 EBIT 利潤率我看大概是 45%。你們對全年指引是 44%。

Is there anything to call out on COGS or operating expenses, as we think about the balance of the year? Is there any non-Ostro AI-related revenue embedded within guidance?

在我們看今年剩餘期間時，銷貨成本或營運費用方面有什麼需要特別說明的嗎？指引中是否包含任何非 Ostro AI 相關的營收？

Thank you.

謝謝。

Hey, Stan. On the first part of your question, around COGS and overall margins for the year, I think the main factor that you see that's different this year is some of those services investments that we're making; that we've talked about in the past and had been ramping up over the course of last year.

嗨，Stan。你問題的第一部分，關於銷貨成本與全年整體利潤率，我認為今年你看到的主要不同因素，是我們正在進行的一些服務投資；這些我們過去也談過，並且在去年逐步加速投入。

And so you see that effect in the services gross margins, if you look, year over year.

所以如果你看服務的毛利率，年對年就會看到那個影響。

On the subscription side, year over year, it's a little bit of a dip in the margins. That's really more a function of last Q1's outperformance.

在訂閱方面，年對年毛利率略有下滑。這主要是因為去年第一季表現超預期。

You recall we had the break-out quarter in Crossix audiences, which really flowed through to the bottom line, as well as certain expenses that shifted, at that time, out into Q2.

你還記得我們在 Crossix audiences 有一個爆發性的季度，對獲利端貢獻很大；同時也有一些費用在當時從第一季移到第二季。

Last Q1 was really an outlier. Subs is really on a steady trajectory here.

去年第一季其實是個異常值。訂閱業務在這裡是相當穩健的軌跡。

We're continuing to invest across the business. You see us making investments in our data network to support Data Cloud, in acquisitions like Ostro, in Falcon, and Vault AI.

我們持續在整個業務上投資。你看到我們在資料網路上投資以支援 Data Cloud，也在像 Ostro 這樣的併購上投資，還有 Falcon 與 Vault AI。

There are a lot of investments we continue to make to drive growth. But feeling good about the efficiency of the business and the guide that we're posting for the balance of the year.

我們仍持續進行許多投資以推動成長。但我們對業務效率以及我們對今年剩餘期間所提出的指引感到樂觀。

(multiple speakers) --

（多位發言者）--

The second part of your question, Stan, I think I missed.

Stan，你問題的第二部分，我想我漏掉了。

You still there, Stan? All right. We'll pick it up later.

Stan，你還在線上嗎？好吧，我們稍後再接續。

Craig Hettenbach, Morgan Stanley.

Craig Hettenbach，摩根士丹利。

Yes. Thank you. Peter, given you're furthest along on AI and of the Vault CRM agents that launched back in December, curious what the initial uptake is there, if there's anything you want to tie into the recent Commercial Summit.

是的，謝謝。Peter，鑑於你們在 AI 上走得最前面，而且 Vault CRM 代理在去年 12 月就已推出，我想了解目前初期採用情況如何？以及是否有任何內容可以連結到最近的 Commercial Summit。

And then, for Brian, just a question on just cost of compute and how you're thinking about the puts-and-takes on gross margin, as AI ramps.

另外給 Brian，一個關於運算成本的問題：隨著 AI 規模提升，你們如何看待毛利率的增減因素（puts-and-takes）？

In terms of the commercial agents, actually, the one where we were first out to marketplace was in the commercial content area. We have more than 10 customers live. It's going really well in our quick-check agents. We're learning a lot there.

就商業代理而言，其實我們最早進入市場的是商業內容領域。我們已有超過 10 家客戶上線。快速檢核（quick-check）代理的進展非常順利，我們也從中學到很多。

At Commercial Summit, we had a number of customers live on some of our agents in CRM actually generating Commercial Evidence in these agentic call reports. Pretty happy with that.

在 Commercial Summit 上，我們有多位客戶在 CRM 的一些代理上線，並在這些代理式通話報告中實際產出 Commercial Evidence。對此我們相當滿意。

I think this is the year where we'll scale that more. I would say, Craig -- or Stan -- early adopters, live. Now, we have to scale it in both of the commercial areas.

我認為今年我們會把規模做得更大。我會說，Craig——或 Stan——早期採用者已經上線。現在我們必須在兩個商業領域都把它擴大規模。

This is Brian, on the second part.

我是 Brian，回答第二部分。

Picking up, Stan's second question was around AI revenue, which -- I think, for this year, our overall expectation had been for AI to be fairly immaterial, outside of Ostro.

接續一下，Stan 的第二個問題是關於 AI 營收。我想今年我們的整體預期是，除了 Ostro 之外，AI 的營收貢獻會相對不具重大性。

We're really focused on getting AI live in all of our customer areas; getting to product excellence; getting to customer success. It starts with that deep value creation for customers.

我們真正聚焦的是讓 AI 在所有客戶領域上線；做到產品卓越；做到客戶成功。一切都從為客戶創造深度價值開始。

On the margin side, you also don't see a material impact, Craig, in Vault AI, where it's usage-based on tokens. I think we have a pretty good understanding of what that dynamic looks like. It's factored into our guidance.

在利潤率方面，Craig，你也不會看到 Vault AI 有重大影響；它是以 token 為基礎的用量計費。我們對這種動態有相當好的掌握，並已納入我們的指引。

I don't expect there to be a material impact on margins, driven by AI, this year.

我不預期今年 AI 會對利潤率造成重大影響。

Adam Hotchkiss, Goldman Sachs.

Adam Hotchkiss，高盛。

Great. Thanks for taking the question.

很好，謝謝讓我提問。

Peter, I wanted to ask another one on Ostro. I thought it was interesting, in the prepared remarks, that you characterized this as a start-up within Veeva.

Peter，我想再問一題關於 Ostro。我覺得你在事先準備的發言中把它形容為「Veeva 內部的一家新創」很有意思。

Just curious what the innovation framework looks like in that type of environment and how it compares to how you've innovated, historically.

想請教在那樣的環境下，創新框架會是什麼樣子？以及與你們過去的創新方式相比，有何不同？

And then, Brian, just on AI driving efficiencies within your operating expense base, maybe talk a little bit more about the progress in the R&D org and where else in the cost structure we might see some of that start to show up.

另外 Brian，關於 AI 在營運費用基礎中帶來效率提升，能否多談一些研發組織的進展？以及在成本結構的其他地方，我們可能會在哪裡開始看到這些效益浮現？

Thanks so much.

非常感謝。

Adam, in terms of operating as a start-up, in the operating model for Veeva, we have a notion of the start-up models and the core models.

Adam，關於以新創方式運作，在 Veeva 的營運模式中，我們有「新創模式」與「核心模式」的概念。

In the core models, we're organized functionally, like central sales team, engineering team -- things like that.

在核心模式下，我們以職能來組織，例如中央銷售團隊、工程團隊——諸如此類。

In a start-up model, it's all fully contained under a CEO. We use that, either when the market's very different or when the product really needs to evolve.

在新創模式下，一切都完整地由一位 CEO 統籌。我們會在市場差異很大，或產品確實需要演進時採用這種模式。

Ostro is in a start-up model. Everybody who works on Ostro is fully reporting to the CEO of Ostro. There's guidance and help from other functional areas of Veeva.

Ostro 採用新創模式。所有在 Ostro 工作的人都直接向 Ostro 的 CEO 匯報。Veeva 其他職能部門也會提供指導與協助。

There's certainly inroads like, okay, Ostro doesn't have to use their own master subscription agreement anymore and all that type of stuff.

當然也有一些整合上的進展，例如，Ostro 不必再使用他們自己的主訂閱協議（master subscription agreement）之類的事情。

It operates as a start-up. It can retain its speed. But it has a really smooth ramp-up.

它以新創方式運作，能保有速度，同時也能非常順暢地加速擴張。

That's been a key to our success. If you look at, how does Veeva keep having good products, all the way from manufacturing to drug safety to CRM to clinical operations and everything else in between?

這一直是我們成功的關鍵。如果你看，Veeva 如何能持續推出好產品，從製造到藥物安全到 CRM 到臨床營運，以及中間的所有領域？

We have a good model for knowing when something needs to be a start-up. But we also -- we build great pieces of the puzzle but we know how the puzzle fits together.

我們有一個很好的模式，知道什麼時候某件事需要以新創方式來做。同時，我們打造出拼圖中的優秀部件，但也知道整個拼圖如何組合在一起。

If you look at Ostro: partnership with OpenEvidence -- doctors on OpenEvidence hands over to Ostro, can't answer that question; hands over to CRM to a human.

以 Ostro 為例：與 OpenEvidence 的合作——在 OpenEvidence 上的醫師把問題交給 Ostro；若 Ostro 無法回答，再交給 CRM 由真人處理。

Ostro knows they have the autonomy to function but they're part of a bigger picture. They know where they need to function and where they don't need to function so that we provide great value for the customer.

Ostro 知道自己有自主權可以運作，但它也是更大藍圖的一部分。他們知道哪些地方需要自己運作、哪些地方不需要，從而為客戶提供很高的價值。

That's our structural advantage, right? That's why we're confident we're on track for our $6 billion of revenue and double that amount of value for our customers in 2030.

那就是我們的結構性優勢，對吧？這也是為什麼我們有信心在 2030 年達成 60 億美元營收，並為客戶創造相當於該數字兩倍的價值。

Because we're building a bigger picture that fits together, you have to be able to have a start-up model to do that. You have to be a very attractive place for start-ups of the right type to want to come to Veeva to create excellent value.

因為我們正在打造一個能彼此契合的更大藍圖；要做到這點，你必須能採用新創模式。你也必須成為一個對合適類型的新創而言非常有吸引力的地方，讓他們願意來到 Veeva 創造卓越價值。

We don't do that many start-ups acquisitions. But, when we do, we figure out how to operate them. And then, they succeed.

我們不做那麼多新創型併購。但當我們做的時候，我們會想辦法讓它們以合適的方式運作。然後，它們就會成功。

We bought Crossix in 2019. Crossix is -- I don't know how many times bigger than it was since then. It spawned the whole Compass, as well.

我們在 2019 年收購了 Crossix。Crossix——我不知道現在比當時大了多少倍。它也催生了整個 Compass。

That was the plan for how to operate Crossix inside of Veeva. That's something I'm very proud of.

那就是我們當初規劃 Crossix 在 Veeva 內部如何運作的計畫。這件事我非常自豪。

And then, Brian, over to you.

接著，Brian，交給你。

Yeah. On your second question, around the use of AI, internally We use AI throughout the company. We've got general-purpose tools and then, also, specific tools in major functional areas.

好的。關於你的第二個問題，關於內部使用 AI，我們在公司各處都在使用 AI。我們有通用型工具，也在主要職能領域有特定工具。

Probably, the most significant place we're using it is around the product because that's where we spend the most.

可能我們使用得最重要的地方是在產品上，因為那是我們花費最多的地方。

And so you heard Peter mention earlier: In product engineering, we use Claude Code. It's come a long way. We're seeing great efficiency from that tool.

所以你先前聽到 Peter 提到：在產品工程方面，我們使用 Claude Code。它已經進步很多。我們從這個工具看到很高的效率。

I think, in general, that means we'll hire a little less than we would have and accomplish more than we would have; and go a little bit faster.

我想，整體而言，這代表我們會比原本預期少招一些人，卻能完成比原本更多的事情；而且速度也會更快一些。

But, for us, it's more about productivity. The combination of hiring a little less, accomplishing a little more, we think easily outweighs the token cost. That's all factored into our guidance.

但對我們來說，重點更在於生產力。少招一點人、完成多一點事的組合，我們認為很容易就能超過 token 成本。這些都已納入我們的財測指引。

(Operator Instructions)

（接線員指示）

David Larsen, BTIG.

David Larsen，BTIG。

Hey. Congratulations on another great quarter.

嗨。恭喜又繳出一個很棒的季度。

Can you talk a little bit about your ability to take share from the broader ecosystem? In particular, like, for CROs, for example, it sounds like you're expanding pretty deep and pretty fast into more R&D efforts.

你能否談談你們從更廣泛的生態系中取得市占的能力？特別是，例如對 CRO 而言，聽起來你們正相當深入且快速地擴大到更多研發投入。

Like, are you taking some of the long, expensive labor efforts that the CROs would do in enabling your biopharma clients to do that in-house with your AI?

例如，你們是否正在把 CRO 會做的那些漫長、昂貴的人力工作，轉而讓你們的生物製藥客戶透過你們的 AI 在內部完成？

And then, also, on the commercial side, what is your vision for what the AI could actually do? Could they make calls to doctors? Could they send text messages to doctors?

另外，在商業端，你們對 AI 實際能做什麼的願景是什麼？它們能打電話給醫師嗎？能傳簡訊給醫師嗎？

Would you potentially take share from Doximity, for example; or others like Doximity, like LinkedIn? Just, are you taking share from the ecosystem and enabling your clients to do that work, internally?

你們是否可能從 Doximity（例如）或其他像 Doximity、像 LinkedIn 這樣的公司手中取得市占？也就是說，你們是否正在從生態系中取得市占，並讓你們的客戶能在內部完成那些工作？

Thanks.

謝謝。

Yeah. I'll take that one.

好的。我來回答這題。

In terms of where can agentic labor play and what can agents do, the best places to do are high-volume, repetitive work. It actually gets outsourced.

就代理式勞動可以在哪裡發揮、代理能做什麼而言，最適合的場景是高量、重複性的工作。這類工作其實會被外包出去。

That type of work, actually, it's not so much the CROs; it's other specialized labor providers that do that.

這類工作其實不太是 CRO 在做；而是由其他提供此類服務的專業人力供應商在做。

I think this could actually be beneficial for the CROs because we can do that lower volume work, which is generally done by the pharma company or a specialized outsourcer. We can do that cheaper, faster, better.

我認為這其實可能對 CRO 有利，因為我們可以做那些較低量的工作，而這些工作通常是由藥廠或專業外包商來做。我們可以用更低成本、更快速度、更好品質來完成。

That'll hopefully allow pharma companies to run more trials. That's where the higher-margin work is for the CROs.

這希望能讓藥廠能進行更多試驗。而那才是 CRO 的高毛利工作所在。

Then, in commercial, agentic labor there will not be -- you're not going yo -- you're going to have helper agents that help the field teams do things. But I don't think you'll have -- you're not going to replace a field person. That's about managing relationships, things like that.

接著在商業端，代理式勞動不會是——你不會——你會有協助型代理來幫助外勤團隊做事。但我不認為你會——你不會取代外勤人員。那是關於經營關係之類的事情。

There may be some things in commercial. For example, there's the medical legal regulatory process that is burdensome and expensive; and occupies many parts of people's times in life sciences. I think that can largely be automated 70% or more with the right agents, over time.

商業端可能有一些事情可以做。例如，醫療／法務／法規（medical legal regulatory）流程既繁重又昂貴；而且在生命科學領域占用了許多人相當多的時間。我認為隨著時間推進，透過合適的代理，這部分很大程度上可以自動化 70% 以上。

But, the actual field person, I think it's going to augment them. Yes. The agent might help them draft an e-mail. It might send a text reminder on their own behalf.

但我認為實際的外勤人員會被增強（augment）。是的，代理可能幫他們起草一封電子郵件；也可能代表他們發送一則簡訊提醒。

But the (inaudible) -- in commercial, mainly, though, it's going to enable the field to be more productive and enable the pharma companies to do things they could never do before, which is have a conversation of a certain type with a healthcare provider at midnight, when they wanted it.

但（聽不清）——不過在商業端，主要是讓外勤更有效率，並讓藥廠能做以前根本做不到的事，也就是在醫療照護提供者想要的時候，例如半夜，進行某種類型的對話。

Ostro can do that. They never had anything that could do that before. It's not one-size-fits-all with these agents.

Ostro 可以做到。以前他們沒有任何東西能做到這點。這些代理並不是一體適用（one-size-fits-all）。

Steven Valiquette, Mizuho Securities.

Steven Valiquette，瑞穗證券（Mizuho Securities）。

Yeah. Thanks. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the question.

好的，謝謝。下午好。謝謝讓我提問。

Yeah. I think, just for us, it's good to see the positive Crossix results and outlook for the rest of this year, which is pretty consistent with what you communicated previously.

是的。我想，對我們來說，很高興看到 Crossix 的正面成果以及今年剩餘時間的展望，這與你們先前溝通的內容相當一致。

If you can just remind us, maybe at a high-level, without giving any specific numbers, just on the current level of customer concentration within Crossix.

如果可以的話，請你們提醒我們一下，也許在高層次、不提供任何具體數字的前提下，Crossix 目前客戶集中度的大致情況。

Like, for example, if one single biopharma customer were to pull back, would that theoretically change the full-year outlook? Or are the Crossix revenue streams pretty diversified, such that one customer is not really going to make a material difference in your outlook?

例如，如果某一家生物製藥客戶縮手，理論上會改變全年展望嗎？還是 Crossix 的營收來源相當多元，因此單一客戶其實不太會對你們的展望造成重大影響？

Thanks.

謝謝。

Hey, Steven. This is Brian. I'll pick this one up.

嗨，Steven。我是 Brian。我來回答這題。

Overall, as Paul touched on earlier, I think, really pleased with progress in Crossix. It's selling into a really healthy and growing end market.

整體而言，正如 Paul 先前提到的，我們對 Crossix 的進展非常滿意。它銷售的終端市場非常健康且正在成長。

For us, that means it's now quite a diversified business. That comes in a couple different forms:

對我們來說，這代表它現在是一個相當多元化的業務。這種多元化體現在幾個不同面向：

One is between measurement and audiences, which are both very large businesses and growing well, individually; as well as, within each of those, we have a number of clients.

其一是在衡量（measurement）與受眾（audiences）之間，兩者都是非常大的業務，且各自成長良好；此外，在這兩者之內，我們也有多家客戶。

We don't see that major concentration risk that would impact the business, over time.

我們沒有看到那種會隨時間推移而影響業務的重大集中度風險。

There's some areas, like GLP-1s, that, maybe, are a little bit larger as a proportion of revenue, just tied to overall industry spending patterns.

有些領域，例如 GLP-1，可能在營收占比上稍微大一些，這只是與整體產業支出型態相關。

But even as that trend has shifted -- for example, you haven't seen that impact the trajectory of Crossix, overall, because there are so many customers across so many indications.

但即使那個趨勢有所轉變——例如，你也沒有看到它影響 Crossix 整體的發展軌跡，因為有非常多客戶分布在非常多適應症上。

Sean Dodge, BMO Capital Markets.

Sean Dodge，BMO 資本市場（BMO Capital Markets）。

Yeah. Thanks for squeezing me in.

好的，謝謝把我塞進來。

Peter, earlier, when you were talking about Veeva Basics, I think you mentioned those would be some of the first users of Falcon. I'm just curious why that would be.

Peter，先前你在談 Veeva Basics 時，我想你提到那些會是 Falcon 的第一批使用者之一。我只是好奇為什麼會是這樣。

Why wouldn't it be some of the more sophisticated longer-term Veeva users, like large pharma, that would be positioned better to be initial Falcon adoptees?

為什麼不會是一些更成熟、使用 Veeva 更久的用戶，例如大型藥廠，反而更適合成為 Falcon 的初期採用者？

Well, Basics are smaller companies; very nimble. Also, they're running not only our products but they're running our processes.

嗯，Basics 是較小的公司；非常靈活。此外，他們不僅在跑我們的產品，也在跑我們的流程。

They have an absolute standard configuration of Veeva, where they're running our processes. We don't have to wonder how they have configured Vault or mapped Vault or done this Vault or with that Vault.

他們採用 Veeva 的絕對標準配置，也就是在跑我們的流程。我們不需要去猜他們如何配置 Vault、如何對 Vault 做映射、如何用這個 Vault 或那個 Vault。

They're running absolute (inaudible) -- let's say, we have over 100 Basics customers in the clinical area, their configuration is exactly the same. How they're using the product is exactly the same.

他們在跑絕對（聽不清）——比如說，我們在臨床領域有超過 100 家 Basics 客戶，他們的配置完全相同。他們使用產品的方式也完全相同。

We operate those systems, in a way, for the customers. If we have our agent working for one Basics customer, it'll work for them all.

某種程度上，我們替客戶營運那些系統。如果我們的代理能為一家 Basics 客戶運作，它就能為所有 Basics 客戶運作。

With the enterprises -- the larger companies -- our agents have to be a little more adaptive. They have to first go through a phase of, okay, understanding how that customer is using that Vault; testing it out.

至於企業客戶——較大的公司——我們的代理就必須更具適應性。它們必須先經過一個階段：好，先理解該客戶如何使用那個 Vault；再進行測試。

Okay, I'm going to classify these documents that they've previously classified, do I get the same of what they got? If so, that's good. If not, what happened there?

好，我要把這些他們先前已分類的文件拿來分類，我得到的結果是否與他們一致？如果一致，那很好；如果不一致，那中間發生了什麼？

Veeva Basics is just going to be smoother -- very, very smooth. It's the next obvious step for Basics. Hey, we got the system and the processes from you. Okay, let's just have it do the standard labor that goes along with that.

Veeva Basics 會順暢得多——非常、非常順暢。這是 Basics 的下一個顯而易見的步驟。嘿，我們從你們這裡拿到了系統與流程。好，那就讓它去做伴隨這些而來的標準勞務工作吧。

I would hope that all of our customers -- in the clinical area, I would hope they're all using Veeva Falcon three years from now. Now, whether that's going to be true or not, I don't know. But I can't see why they wouldn't.

我希望我們所有客戶——在臨床領域，我希望三年後他們都在使用 Veeva Falcon。至於這是否會成真，我不知道。但我看不出他們為什麼不會。

We have reached the end of the Q&A session.

問答環節到此結束。

I will now turn the call back to Peter for closing remarks.

現在我將把電話交回 Peter 作結語。

Thank you, everyone, for joining the call today.

感謝各位今天參加本次電話會議。

Thank you to our customers for your continued partnership; and to the Veeva team for your outstanding work in the quarter.

感謝我們的客戶持續的合作夥伴關係；也感謝 Veeva 團隊在本季度的傑出工作。

Thank you.

謝謝。

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

今天的電話會議到此結束。感謝各位出席。您現在可以掛線。