Nutanix Reports Second Quarter Fiscal 2024 Financial Results
CIOREVIEW >> >> NEWS

Nutanix Reports Second Quarter Fiscal 2024 Financial Results

CIO Review

SAN JOSE, Calif, Nutanix, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTNX), a leader in hybrid multicloud computing, today announced financial results for its second quarter ended January 31, 2024.

“Our disciplined execution enabled us to deliver a solid second quarter financial performance against an uncertain, but stable macro backdrop,” said Rajiv Ramaswami, President and CEO of Nutanix. “We continue to remain focused on being a long-term strategic and innovative partner to our customers as they look to operate in a hybrid multicloud world.”

“Our second quarter results demonstrated a good balance of top and bottom line performance with 26% year-over-year ARR growth and strong free cash flow generation,” said Rukmini Sivaraman, CFO of Nutanix. “We also achieved GAAP operating profitability for the first time, reflecting the progress we’ve made in driving operating leverage in our model and optimizing the difference between our GAAP and non-GAAP results.”

Second Quarter Fiscal 2024 Financial Summary

Reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures and key performance measures, to the extent available, are provided in the tables of this press release.

Third Quarter Fiscal 2024 Outlook

Supplementary materials to this press release, including our second quarter fiscal 2024 earnings presentation, can be found at https://ir.nutanix.com/financial/quarterly-results.

Webcast and Conference Call Information

Nutanix executives will discuss the Company’s second quarter fiscal 2024 financial results on a conference call today at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time/1:30 p.m. Pacific Time. Interested parties may access the conference call by registering at this link to receive dial in details and a unique PIN number. The conference call will also be webcast live on the Nutanix Investor Relations website at ir.nutanix.com. An archived replay of the webcast will be available on the Nutanix Investor Relations website at ir.nutanix.com shortly after the call.

Footnotes

1Annual Contract Value, or ACV, is defined as the total annualized value of a contract, excluding amounts related to professional services and hardware. The total annualized value for a contract is calculated by dividing the total value of the contract by the number of years in the term of such contract, using, where applicable, an assumed term of five years for contracts that do not have a specified term. ACV Billings, for any given period, is defined as the sum of the ACV for all contracts billed during the given period.

2Annual Recurring Revenue, or ARR, for any given period, is defined as the sum of ACV for all non life-of-device contracts in effect as of the end of a specific period. For the purposes of this calculation, we assume that the contract term begins on the date a contract is booked, unless the terms of such contract prevent us from fulfilling our obligations until a later period, and irrespective of the periods in which we would recognize revenue for such contract.

3Average Contract Duration represents the dollar-weighted term, calculated on a billings basis, across all subscription and life-of-device contracts, using an assumed term of five years for life-of-device licenses, executed in the period.

4Revenue was negatively impacted by a year-over-year decline in the average contract duration, including as a result of Nutanix’s transition to a subscription-based business model.

5Weighted average share count used in computing diluted non-GAAP net income per share.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures and Other Key Performance Measures

To supplement our consolidated financial statements, which are prepared and presented in accordance with GAAP, this press release includes the following non-GAAP financial and other key performance measures: non-GAAP gross margin, non-GAAP operating expenses, non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP operating margin, free cash flow, Annual Contract Value Billings (or ACV Billings), Annual Recurring Revenue (or ARR), and Average Contract Duration. In computing non-GAAP financial measures, we exclude certain items such as stock-based compensation and the related income tax impact, costs associated with our acquisitions (such as amortization of acquired intangible assets, income tax-related impact, and other acquisition-related costs), costs related to the impairment and early exit of operating lease-related assets, restructuring charges, litigation settlement accruals and legal fees related to certain litigation matters, the amortization of the debt discount and issuance costs, interest expense related to convertible senior notes, gains on divestitures, and other non-recurring transactions and the related tax impact. Non-GAAP gross margin, non-GAAP operating expenses, non-GAAP operating income, and non-GAAP operating margin are financial measures which we believe provide useful information to investors because they provide meaningful supplemental information regarding our performance and liquidity by excluding certain expenses and expenditures such as stock-based compensation expense that may not be indicative of our ongoing core business operating results. Free cash flow is a performance measure that we believe provides useful information to our management and investors about the amount of cash generated by the business after necessary capital expenditures, and we define free cash flow as net cash provided by (used in) operating activities less purchases of property and equipment. ACV Billings is a performance measure that we believe provides useful information to our management and investors as it allows us to better track the topline growth of our business during our transition to a subscription-based business model because it takes into account variability in term lengths. ARR is a performance measure that we believe provides useful information to our management and investors as it allows us to better track the topline growth of our subscription business because it takes into account variability in term lengths. We use these non-GAAP financial and key performance measures for financial and operational decision-making and as a means to evaluate period-to-period comparisons. However, these non-GAAP financial and key performance measures have limitations as analytical tools and you should not consider them in isolation or as substitutes for analysis of our results as reported under GAAP. Non-GAAP gross margin, non-GAAP operating expenses, non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP operating margin, and free cash flow are not substitutes for gross margin, operating expenses, operating income (loss), operating margin, or net cash provided by (used in) operating activities, respectively. There is no GAAP measure that is comparable to ACV Billings, ARR, or Average Contract Duration, so we have not reconciled the ACV Billings, ARR, or Average Contract Duration data included in this press release to any GAAP measure. In addition, other companies, including companies in our industry, may calculate non-GAAP financial measures and key performance measures differently or may use other measures to evaluate their performance, all of which could reduce the usefulness of our non-GAAP financial measures and key performance measures as tools for comparison. We urge you to review the reconciliation of our non-GAAP financial measures and key performance measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures included below in the tables captioned “Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Profit Measures” and “Reconciliation of GAAP Net Cash Provided By Operating Activities to Non-GAAP Free Cash Flow,” and not to rely on any single financial measure to evaluate our business. This press release also includes the following forward-looking non-GAAP financial measures as part of our third quarter fiscal 2024 outlook and/or our fiscal 2024 outlook: non-GAAP gross margin, non-GAAP operating margin, and free cash flow. We are unable to reconcile these forward-looking non-GAAP financial measures to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures without unreasonable efforts, as we are currently unable to predict with a reasonable degree of certainty the type and extent of certain items that would be expected to impact the GAAP financial measures for these periods but would not impact the non-GAAP financial measures.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains express and implied forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, statements regarding: our business momentum and prospects, our third quarter fiscal 2024 outlook, and our fiscal 2024 outlook.

These forward-looking statements are not historical facts and instead are based on our current expectations, estimates, opinions, and beliefs. Consequently, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements. The accuracy of these forward-looking statements depends upon future events and involves risks, uncertainties, and other factors, including factors that may be beyond our control, that may cause these statements to be inaccurate and cause our actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied by such statements, including, among others: the inherent uncertainty or assumptions and estimates underlying our projections and guidance, which are necessarily speculative in nature; any failure to successfully implement or realize the full benefits of, or unexpected difficulties or delays in successfully implementing or realizing the full benefits of, our business plans, strategies, initiatives, vision, and objectives; our ability to achieve, sustain and/or manage future growth effectively; the rapid evolution of the markets in which we compete, including the introduction, or acceleration of adoption of, competing solutions, including public cloud infrastructure; failure to timely and successfully meet our customer needs; delays in or lack of customer or market acceptance of our new solutions, products, services, product features or technology; macroeconomic or geopolitical uncertainty, including supply chain issues; our ability to attract, recruit, train, retain, and, where applicable, ramp to full productivity, qualified employees and key personnel; factors that could result in the significant fluctuation of our future quarterly operating results (including anticipated changes to our revenue and product mix, the timing and magnitude of orders, shipments and acceptance of our solutions in any given quarter, our ability to attract new and retain existing end-customers, changes in the pricing and availability of certain components of our solutions, and fluctuations in demand and competitive pricing pressures for our solutions); our ability to form new or maintain and strengthen existing strategic alliances and partnerships, as well as our ability to manage any changes thereto; the impact of a pandemic or major public health concern; our ability to make share repurchases; and other risks detailed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, on September 21, 2023 and our subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. Additional information will be set forth in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2024, which should be read in conjunction with this press release and the financial results included herein. Our SEC filings are available on the Investor Relations section of our website at ir.nutanix.com and on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release and, except as required by law, we assume no obligation, and expressly disclaim any obligation, to update, alter or otherwise revise any of these forward-looking statements to reflect actual results or subsequent events or circumstances.

More in News

AI agents are exposing a problem that conventional workflow software has rarely solved. Many enterprises run essential work across SaaS platforms, integration tools, local scripts and shared spreadsheets. Agents are then expected to work across all of them, gather enough context and make safe decisions. The difficulty lies in the gap between what an agent can infer and what the business can actually control. Point-to-point integrations move data but do not preserve the history of a process. iPaaS platforms connect systems, yet long-running work can still end up scattered across queues, callbacks, approvals and exceptions. For buyers, introducing agents is only part of the challenge. They also need a process that can show exactly what happened. Workflow orchestration can provide that structure when it carries context along with the work instead of simply routing it from one system to another. Agents still need room to exercise judgment, but that judgment needs boundaries. A model might classify an email, interpret intent, retrieve missing context and recommend what should happen next. It should not have to work out the refund procedure or customer verification process from scratch every time a request comes in. Repeatable steps are less expensive to execute through deterministic logic and easier to audit. The agent can then handle the parts that require interpretation while established actions remain within versioned process logic. “Agents can make decisions where judgment is required while the workflow handles repeatable actions.” That separation is useful only if the business can see what happened in each workflow. Executives need a way to inspect the process template, runtime history, agent decision and failure path in one place. Once APIs, agents, human reviewers and external events are involved, ordinary system logs do not provide the whole picture. Buyers need to know which action ran, what data moved, what decision was made and what happened when a step timed out or had to be retried. Keeping that information with the process also makes automation easier to improve because performance data remains connected to the work that produced it. The amount of engineering required to get there matters too. An orchestration platform has limited practical value if a company needs to build a large specialist team before it can put a useful process into production. Existing services and SaaS APIs should be composable into business logic that people can understand and change without rebuilding the entire integration map. A code-first approach is useful when software teams get version control, business reviewers can see the workflow as a visual graph, auditors can trace what happened and agents have a stable process map to work within. The larger issue is ownership of the process, not simply how many tasks can be automated. Long-running workflows need to retain state, and agent decisions need to remain visible without requiring a model call at every step. Once the process is running, event-driven feedback can show where it needs improvement. The platform also has to work for organizations with different levels of software maturity. One team may be coordinating a large collection of microservices, while another needs custom workflow logic around ERP, CRM, field-service and workforce systems without having to wait for a vendor to add the functionality to its roadmap. LittleHorse takes this approach with Saddle Command Center and its Business-as-Code model for building workflows across microservices, SaaS platforms, agents and human-in-the-loop steps. Agents can make decisions where judgment is required while the workflow handles repeatable actions. Individual instances remain traceable, and workflow event data can be published to Apache Kafka for analysis. Support for Java, Python, Go and C# also allows engineering teams to maintain the business logic without having to adopt a specialist workflow language. For enterprises working across disconnected SaaS environments or complex microservice estates, LittleHorse provides a practical way to give AI agents room to make decisions while keeping the surrounding process visible and controlled. ...Read more
Sage migration decisions often begin with a contradiction. Finance and IT teams want the subscription feel of SaaS, yet the applications they rely on still carry custom workflows, connected databases, reporting routines and partner-managed changes. A generic cloud host can move the server, but it may leave the business managing every handoff when access breaks or latency appears during a critical task. Month-end close, warehouse workflows, payroll access and reporting cycles leave little room for cloud experiments that behave well only under ideal conditions. The weak point is usually not migration itself. It is the support chain that follows. Servers sit somewhere, a hosting provider manages the platform, the software publisher owns the application, a Sage consultant handles business logic and the internal team is left to coordinate the room. A single interruption then becomes a routing problem. Executives should favor a hosting model that reduces escalation layers without stripping away control over the ERP. Control matters because Sage environments rarely behave like standard SaaS tenants. Updates, integrations, VPN links, reporting tools and adjacent applications may need business-specific treatment. Shared resources can look efficient until they limit troubleshooting or change windows. Dedicated virtual environments, network isolation, clear backup design and documented availability standards give leadership a firmer basis for risk decisions. The point is not more infrastructure for its own sake. It is a service model that keeps customization possible while making ownership clearer. Ransomware risk and phishing exposure have changed the due diligence standard for hosted ERP. Sage access cannot be separated from identity controls, recovery routines, monitoring practices and response authority. A provider that only hosts the application may still leave security teams stitching together evidence after an incident. Before renewal terms are signed, buyers should test how backup frequency, network segmentation, disaster recovery design and incident escalation work in practice. Cloud economics create a second trap. Public cloud flexibility can turn into variable outlay when workloads are poorly matched to the platform. Licensing shifts and Microsoft choices make architecture a finance issue as much as an IT issue. Lowest monthly price can be misleading when internal staff must manage exceptions or pull multiple suppliers into every problem. A stronger decision weighs contract predictability, application performance, recovery posture and the cost of internal coordination. Sage projects also require a provider that can work alongside ERP partners rather than displace them. Against that buying logic, Cloud at Work is a premier choice for Sage cloud hosting. It model is built around Sage end users and fewer support handoffs, then extended that base into Azure and managed technology services where the customer environment demands it. Its portfolio spans Virtual Private Cloud, Infrastructure as a Service, Desktop as a Service, Managed Services and Managed Cybersecurity, giving buyers a path from hosted Sage to broader cloud management without changing accountability every time the environment expands. Dedicated resources, virtual firewalls, backup design and Sage-aware support match the pressures that matter most. For leaders who want Sage to feel closer to a managed service while preserving customization, Cloud at Work warrants serious consideration. ...Read more
Digital transformation remains a priority for organizations across Canada, but for many leaders, the challenge is no longer deciding whether to modernize. It is figuring out how to do it without disrupting the systems the business relies on every day. Many organizations are operating in a mixed environment where old and new technologies must work side by side. Core applications that were implemented years ago still support critical operations. ERP and commercial off-the-shelf platforms have been customized over time to fit unique business processes. Data often lives in multiple systems and cybersecurity concerns continue to grow as organizations expand their use of cloud services, mobile applications and external partners. The result is a level of complexity that can make modernization feel risky, even when change is clearly needed. This is why successful digital transformation rarely starts with technology. It starts with understanding the business. Leaders need a clear picture of which systems continue to deliver value, where inefficiencies exist and which investments will have the greatest impact. Organizations often spend too much money replacing systems that still serve an important purpose or implementing new solutions before fully understanding the long-term costs. The most effective transformation partners help organizations make informed decisions rather than pushing change for its own sake. The same practical approach applies to emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. While AI continues to attract attention, its success depends heavily on the quality of the data behind it. Organizations that struggle with fragmented information, inconsistent processes or weak governance often find it difficult to unlock meaningful value from AI investments. Data modernization, cybersecurity and system modernization are closely connected. Progress in one area often depends on getting the others right. Security has become another defining factor in successful transformation initiatives. Whether operating in healthcare, education, municipal government or the private sector, Canadian organizations face increasing expectations around privacy, access management and accountability. Security cannot be treated as a separate project that follows modernization efforts. It needs to be built into planning and decision-making from the beginning. Strong governance, clear documentation and defined responsibilities help organizations reduce risk while giving leadership teams confidence that projects remain on track. Execution is equally important. Many transformation initiatives struggle not because the strategy is wrong but because employees are left behind during the process. New systems, workflows and technologies only create value when people understand how to use them and why the changes matter. Clear communication, realistic timelines and strong change management are often the difference between a successful implementation and an expensive disappointment. For organizations operating across different regions of Canada, bilingual communication and local stakeholder engagement can further influence outcomes. For organizations looking to modernize in a practical and manageable way, IPSG Technology offers an approach grounded in business realities rather than technology trends. The company combines custom application development, website modernization, cloud services, cybersecurity, data optimization and change enablement to help organizations navigate complex transformation initiatives with confidence. Its strength lies in helping clients modernize ERP and COTS environments without unnecessary replacement, align AI initiatives with data readiness and incorporate security from the outset. By focusing on clarity, governance and measurable outcomes, IPSG Technology helps organizations move forward without losing sight of operational continuity, budget control and long-term business value. ...Read more
Mid-sized companies often reach a point where data volume has outgrown the reporting habits built around it. Sales systems, finance platforms, customer records and workforce tools accumulate information, yet decision-makers still wait for manually assembled reports or rely on partial views. The buying problem is rarely a shortage of software. It is the cost and coordination burden of connecting systems, preparing reliable data and turning it into useful action without building a large specialist team. Platform selection should begin with the data foundation. Dashboards and AI models cannot compensate for inconsistent definitions, missing records or poorly governed pipelines. Executives need to know how a platform profiles and cleans data while preserving traceability from source to output. Integration also matters beyond the initial connection. A workable platform must support existing databases and business applications while reducing the amount of custom code required to keep those links current. Migration demands, refresh frequency and access controls deserve scrutiny before implementation begins. The next pressure is time to proof. Many firms cannot justify a large upfront investment in engineers and data scientists before a use case has shown credible returns. A platform should let a business test a narrow problem and measure model accuracy before committing to broader deployment. Low-code workflow design can shorten that cycle, but ease of configuration must not remove oversight. Buyers should examine how knowledge bases and semantic layers are managed when model outputs affect staff decisions or customer-facing processes. Access to insight presents a separate test. Static reports remain useful for recurring review, yet business leaders increasingly need answers that were not anticipated when a dashboard was built. Natural-language querying can reduce dependence on report backlogs, provided the platform grounds responses in governed company data and shows enough context for users to judge the result. Predictive functions should be assessed in the same manner. Forecasts are valuable only when teams can understand the inputs and monitor performance before connecting a prediction to a defined next step. The final buying concern is service depth. Mid-sized firms may adopt a capable platform and still lack the people to design data models or maintain AI workflows. A provider should be able to supply targeted support without turning every change into a consulting project. Subscription or usage-based pricing can lower the entry barrier, though buyers should compare consumption controls and support terms carefully. The strongest fit will combine self-service tools with practical help around implementation and model tuning, backed by ongoing maintenance when internal capacity is limited. Aidas Technologies  is a premier choice for firms that need this combination without assembling separate platforms and specialist teams. Its AI-powered data and analytics platform brings data preparation, reporting, predictive modeling and workflow automation into one environment through low-code tools. The company also offers professional services for setup and custom development, plus model support and continued maintenance, allowing buyers to test focused use cases before scaling. A usage-based subscription model further suits mid-sized organizations that need tighter control over upfront cost. For executives prioritizing faster proof and guided adoption, Aidas Technologies merits serious consideration. ...Read more