Hi everyone, and welcome to the Q4 2025 presentation. Today's presenters will be myself, CEO of Nordhealth, and my CFO Alex Cram.

The agenda today will be slightly different than the previous presentations. We'll start with a company update, then we'll go through our AI strategy, then we'll go into the regular veterinary business unit updates, therapy business unit updates, then Alex will go through a financial update, and we'll leave time for questions at the end.

Please hold your questions until the end. Starting with the company update, we reached a significant milestone in 2025 in that we surpassed €50 million in revenue.

This is a just over 10 times increase since 2018 when I took over, which represents a 39% CAGR in revenue. Next is we can see that we ended the year with signed ARR of €47 million.

This is a 46% CAGR since 2018. As you can see, no M&A was done in 2025.

Now, looking at our growth, following discussion with investors, we tried to look at the business a slightly different way this time in that we were looking at the growth of our cloud products. Provet on the vet side, and Nordhealth on the therapy side, which has different brands such as Terapiabooking, Fysika, Secapp, and so on.

At the end of 2024, our ARR for cloud products was 25.5. We've grown that ARR around 25% to around roughly 32.

The source of growth has been we've recruited new customers, 1.3 million, but we've also migrated additional customers.9 million. Our net upsell was 4.7 and our churn was .7, which equates to roughly a 115% net retention rate.

Important to note that these numbers exclude 1.7 million of ARR, which is signed but not implemented. Also important to note, because this is the thing that differentiates us versus other businesses, is our churn rate, which stays at a very low 2.9%.

A 3% churn rate, just for people's understanding, means that a customer stays with you for 30-something years. Then we've added this new bar, which is basically our acquired businesses, which is the ARR which are not on our cloud products.

In our business, we decide between two things when we grow: either A, we grow by spending money on sales and marketing to acquire new customers, or B, we grow by, instead of investing in sales and marketing, purchasing a company and then migrating their customers. There's still 12.2 million of ARR which are on these non-cloud products, which will over time be migrated to our cloud offerings.

Then we've got 1.3 million of other businesses which are not related to PMS for therapists or for vets. Now I want to take a bit of time to go into our AI strategy and specifically how we're positioned today and how we think we'll win in this new AI era.

The first thing is, why are PMS hard to disrupt? There are three big structural moats that make us different from other traditional softwares.

The first is that we're a regulated system of record. That means that we need to be able to have every action, specifically clinical and financial actions, be traceable so that we can audit exactly who did what, when, and why.

Then this is not just a matter of tracing who does what, but certain people are allowed to do certain things and certain are not, there's a whole additional complexity of role-based permissions, approvals, and segregation of duties. Not only do we have to track it, but users need to be able to see the audit log of the actions that have been made.

That's the first structural moat that we've got. The second is integration depth.

The practice management software is not alone in being able to help therapists and vets complete their work. We're part of a very complex ecosystem of hundreds of different partners, which include labs, insurers, registries, government systems, and each of these partners not only require the coding to integrate, but also the commercial agreements to be able to integrate with those partners.

In addition, we don't just integrate with other softwares, we integrate with physical devices, which are very complex to be able to maintain these two-way, bidirectional integrations. These partners don't stay stable, they're always changing to new versions.

Our job is to continuously make sure that our integration works depending on which version they're on, make sure that uptime and support requirements are up to date. The third structural moat is the workflow density.

When a patient comes into a clinic, they interact with 20-plus different modules from scheduling to billing, to consultation, to lab requests, and so on. If someone wants to build a practice management software from scratch, given the interconnectedness of all these events, they have to build it all before they are able to compete.

The reason why is because it's very tightly coupled, all of these actions that have to be done. That additional complexity also comes in by the fact that when we serve enterprises, there's a whole additional need of scalability and multi-site controls, permissioning, and reporting on top, which adds a lot of complexity.

It's really hard to build even with AI. On this workflow density, the users that we serve also do not like to change very fast, and we know this very much because when we make a small change in our products, it takes a while for our users to get used to it.

The market we're serving also is quite conservative relative to, for example, if we were building a coding app. Those are the structural moats that we have today.

What we see is that AI is the new workflow layer on top of the system of record, not a replacement for it. To get a bit more specific, there's three different types of players which are competing to own what we call the system of action, right, which is AI on top of the system of record, the distribution platform for AI.

The first are legacy practice management softwares where they've got the workflow depth, they've got the integration depth, but they've been very, very slow to iterate on AI and UX not only because of engineering capacity and engineering talent, but also because it's very hard on the legacy infrastructure to be able to build to them. The second are start-up practice management software.

They do have modern UX and they are fast in terms of churning out new features. However, they're missing compliance, integration, and workflow depth.

That depth, as we discussed in the previous slide, take years to build even with AI. The third category which is emerging are these AI scribes.

AI scribes are an add-on for many practice management softwares. They're very easy to adopt because they serve a specific point solution, but they don't have workflow ownership, and so they have to plug into a PMS, and they're currently a feature, not a platform.

In order to win, they have to go the similar track as the start-up PMS and becoming the platform, not only the workflow layer, but also the system of record below. How we're positioning our practice management software is to be a system of action platform.

What we have today and our strengths that we talked about in the first slide are that we're the compliance-grade auditability, right, across clinical and financial events, the hundreds of integrations that connect to devices, and also the full workflow depth that's proven at enterprise scale. In this shift, what we're building now is a platform where actions can be executed by AI, sometimes fully autonomously, sometimes with humans on the loop.

For ordering, charging, communications, and we will do so in the same way we built the platform in that there'll be a full approval flow and also full audit log. The second is that we want to be able to have third-party agents being able to interact, but we will own the front end and the workflow and decide which information does this agent have access to.

All the orders will come from our practice management software, go out to the agents, and then all the information will go back into the system of record. We'll make sure that there's proper governance, proper telemetry, and that we route to the right agents.

The third is that throughout each of the parts of the workflow from reception, consult, and check out, we're adding sort of the AI-first user experience across these workflows. How we win against these players is, one, is that we have strong moats today, and we have to execute with velocity to be able to shift to a system of action before these start-up PMSs can build the depth in workflows and integration and compliance, before these AI scribes can try to take over the UI layer.

We need to be the platform that AI runs on. Now, let's go a little bit deeper in terms of our AI roadmap to get a bit more specific.

In the next 12 months, we will continue embedding intelligence in our workflows, making sure we own the workflow end to end. The first part, which we demoed in the last presentation, is our native AI scribe, which auto-generates SOAP notes.

Actually, this week, we've launched the smart capture method, which not only adds the notes to the medical record, but also add the items to be billed, adds the vitals for the patients, adds the next actions that are required, all from voice. You can click one button, speak, and then all the consultation can be done for you.

That's the primary thing we're working on. The second one is we've launched a two-way communication on the veterinary side, for example, and our goal is to make it a full native AI receptionist, which, for example, triages the inbox, drafts, or even autonomously responds to calls, emails, SMS, WhatsApp.

Then we always want to make sure that if the AI is unsure, it does an escalation to a human, humans in the loop. That's what's happening in the next 12 months.

Then in 2027, what we will focus on is shifting from a system of record with embedded intelligence to a full system of action. Let me try to explain this to you a bit better.

Today, humans navigate screens from calendar to consultation to be able to find information and add information to the system. What we see as the next phase is that we'll have a centralized action inbox, which surfaces the right information and suggests next actions, and humans can confirm or override.

The third step of this evolution is we become the platform for agent orchestration. In the first two phases, we have built our own agents or built our own scribes which are native.

In the last phase, for edge cases, for example, right, we will own the agent orchestration user experience where our own agents that we built, but also third-party agents, right, for example, for imaging or diagnostic or lab interpretations, right, will be able to be activated from our platform. All the information that's generated will come back to the core system of record, which is auditable, right?

All the AI output converge into one medical record. That's our vision for this sort of AI operating system.

Now, going to the results for veterinary. Starting with the veterinary business updates.

As we described, one of the key things we're trying to achieve is to improve the velocity of execution, right? The tools now are spectacular to be able to code, right, and the time it takes to code is going down.

We have recruited a new VP of Product to lead our AI-first product strategy. We've also had James join us, and he's really had a big impact in terms of increasing the engineering velocity.

You can see that in two primary metrics: one, the lead time, which is the time it takes to release code, the frequency of releasing them, has gone from 29.5 days to less than one day. Second is that with the same amount of people, we've been able to ship 130% more code in H2 versus H1.

Second is new launches. With this new execution capability, we've been able to scale to 13,500 vets on Provet.

We also have been able to launch our Provet Intelligence, which includes our AI scribe, but also AI discharge notes, AI patient history summaries. What you can see here is we're embedding AI directly into the clinical workflow.

The third is we've also launched our new booking portal in Q4. We've now got over 500 clinics live at the end of December.

We've made over 7,000 bookings, and we've got around 5,000 pet owner accounts. This will be the central hub for pet parents over time.

Lastly, we've also made some go-to-market changes. For example, we've rebranded from Provet Cloud to Provet, and we've also simplified our pricing to a per-vet pricing and simplified our packaging, which improves the clarity and sales velocity, but also helps us a lot in the AI era as the ratio of vets to people in the clinic or employees in the clinic will continue to increase.

There'll be need for fewer nurses, fewer receptionists, and so we've changed our pricing model to be able to protect ourselves from that. How have we grown?

Provet has grown around 27% in 2025. In terms of new customers, we've recruited organically .8, but we've also migrated around €500,000 of new customers.

We had a net upsell of 3.8 million and a churn of .2. The churn rate is 1.3%, incredibly low churn on our Provet Cloud products.

Net retention is around 19. 119.6.

We also had 4 million of revenue which is still on Vetera, Sanamedia, which we will aim to migrate over to Provet in the coming months and years. This chart does not include an additional €1.7 million in signed but not implemented ARR, our backlog basically.

Now, going into the drivers of the growth, like to reflect, as it's the Q4 presentation for the end of the year, to see what's been driving our growth. If we look at the four-disc charts, in 2018, we were basically a Finnish player with a strong market position in the veterinary market in Finland.

To that, 2021, we conquered the Nordics and we were able to get the majority of the clinics on board Provet in the Nordics. From 2021, we decided to go outside the Nordics.

We made an acquisition in the DACH markets with Vetera, and you can see that in 2022 with the 1.7 million, but we also organically went to the US, UK, Southern Europe. You can see the benefits of this expansion in 2025 where the UK now is our largest market with €6.1 million of recurring revenue from that market.

We've also got the Southern Europe, which organically has grown to 2.4, and the US is 1.8. The DACH region is quite stable given that we have not yet fully ramped up migrations, but our first few clinics in the DACH region have migrated to Provet, which we call Vetera in that region.

You can see the growth rates for 2025: the UK grew 35%, US 42%, Southern Europe 28%. In the markets in the DACH and Nordic markets, we haven't grown as much because we have captured the share already.

There's a dual story here: highly profitable Nordic markets where we've got everyone on Provet, high growth markets in the US, UK, and Southern Europe, and stable markets in DACH for now because they're still on the legacy product. We've got a huge opportunity in the DACH market to be able to localize for Provet and migrate those people over.

Then the second is beyond the country split, it's good to look at the type of customer split. In 2021, we were mostly serving independent clinics, small, medium enterprises.

The big driver of growth has been enterprise. This has been a big market change in veterinary, but it's also been a focus area for us in that the Nordics were one of the first markets to get corporates, and as a result, we had a first-mover advantage in terms of building a software that enterprises love.

You can see this from this chart, and I foresee this continuing in that the majority of our growth will continue to come from enterprise because our product is very suited to these enterprise clinics who want to be able to manage centrally, but provide in some cases local autonomy for certain decisions. That's on the veterinary side.

Now moving on to therapy. If we think about the therapy business, the main mission has been migration, and we migrated 800 Aspit users to the unified platform by the end of December.

It's up from 330 at the end of September, we're starting to gain pace with the migration. In addition, in Q4, we reached over 900 customers paying for AI assistant, and a total 60,000 hours of transcription were made, and we generated over 137,000 summaries in Q4 alone.

We also signed around €600,000 in new ARR from new business and also the AI upsell. Our priorities going forward are clear: one, continue the Aspit migration to the unified platform.

This will be a big unlock for profitability, right, but also for our ability to upsell our AI products. Second is continued AI product development as per the strategy we outlined at first to be able to sign up practitioners to AI products.

Looking at the growth, right, again looking at the cloud products, the IR and the unified platform, we started at 7.4 and we grew 20% this year. New customers account for 1.1.6 came from new customers organically, but .5 from migrated customers.

We had a net upsell of 1 million, but churn of 500,000. The churn rate here is 7%.

It's slightly higher than on the veterinary side, and the rationale for it is because, one, we are migrating in Norway, and the second is that we have made a strategic decision to not go after non-therapists, and so we do have historical customers which were not therapists with a much higher churn rate, around 20%, which we're actively not going after anymore. Now looking at the migrations, you can see that we are starting to see the cloud share being larger than the non-cloud share for the first time at 8.9 million, makes up 52%, so that's a significant milestone as well.

The full focus of 2025, but also 2026, will be this Aspit migration. Now I want to hand it over to Alex for the financial updates.

Thanks, Charles, and hello, everyone. Going straight into our reported revenue: in Q4 2025, we did €12.6 million of revenue, which is a 3.9% increase versus the same quarter last year.

Our underlying recurring revenue growth was 10.2%, going from €10.7 million in Q4 2024 to €11.8 million in Q4 2025. The reason that our other revenue is lower than Q4 last year is due to implementation revenue.

This is in part due to lower enterprise implementation revenue in Q4 2025 compared to Q4 2024, but also, in Q4 2025, we trialed reducing implementation fees for small and medium clients in our key growth markets. This was to help further accelerate growth in recurring revenues for for SME.

As a result, Q4 2025 share of recurring revenue is 93.9%, up from 88.5% in Q4 2024. Turning then to 2025 full-year reported revenues: so, as as Charles mentioned in the beginning, we achieved a milestone of surpassing €50 million in revenue, achieving €50.8 million of reported revenue in 2025.

This is an increase of 11.3% up from €45.7 million in 2024. Growth in reported recurring revenues in 2025 was higher, growing at 13.6% from €40.2 million in 2024 to €45.6 million in 2025.

Within these numbers, our core veterinary and therapy business units continue to outperform our smaller other businesses. Looking at just vet plus therapy, we achieved a 15.2% growth in reported recurring revenues year on year.

Turning now to quarterly adjusted EBITDA minus capex: in Q4 2025, we reduced by €0.8 million year on year to an adjusted EBITDA minus capex of -€1.3 million. The reduction in implementation revenue described in the Q4 2025 other revenue is the biggest reason for this decrease.

Professional services revenues and profits can vary from quarter to quarter based on the ongoing rollouts we have and also what stage of the rollout that we are in. As previously highlighted, adjusted EBITDA minus capex is also impacted by product development expenditure, which has grown by €0.6 million year on year.

This reflects our continued investments in product development for AI feature development and DACH localization. Looking at adjusted EBITDA only, i.e., excluding our capex investments, we're break-even in Q4 2025.

Next on full-year 2025: our total adjusted EBITDA minus capex was -€3.3 million compared to -€1.2 million in 2024. As with Q4 2025, the 2025 full-year adjusted EBITDA minus capex changes are also related to increased product development expenditure, where we've spent €3.2 million more in 2025 than we did in 2024.

These investments will allow us to expand our geographic footprint at the same time as expanding our average revenue per practitioner. Turning now to full-year Oh, and adjusted EBITDA for the full-year 2025 was profitable at €1.4 million.

Turning now to the full-year 2025 adjusted cash flow: in 2025, we had an adjusted cash outflow of €2.9 million, which is €0.3 million lower than 2024. This variance is primarily driven by a -€1.8 million difference in our adjusted net result, which is partially offset by a €1.4 million favorable sum of other working capital movements.

In particular, allowing a lower closing trade receivables balance as we received a large backlog payment in in Q1 2025. Finally, looking at the December 2025 balance sheet: cash at December 2025 is €14.7 million, of which €10.3 million is in money market funds.

There were no changes to goodwill in Q4 2025 except amortization and changes due to FX. There was no external financing taken in Q4, there are no material equity transactions in Q4, and there are no movements in treasury shares in Q4.

Nordhealth's equity balance remains healthy at €61.6 million, and the company has no interest-bearing debt. There are full financial statements for P&L, balance sheet, and cash flow in in the appendices.

On to guidance: for the full-year 2025, we gave revenue guidance on vet plus therapy recurring revenue based on December 2024 constant currency and excluding acquisitions of 12% to 17% growth. On this, we achieved a full-year 2025 actual of 15.2%, which is within the guidance.

Similarly, for adjusted EBITDA minus capex, we gave a full-year guidance of between -€4 million and -€2 million excluding acquisitions, and our 2025 adjusted EBITDA minus capex actual is -€3.3 million, which is again within the guidance. Looking forward to 2026, we are guiding an increase in total reported recurring revenue from €45.6 million in 2025 to between €50 million and €53 million in 2026.

For adjusted EBITDA minus capex, we're guiding between -€4 million and -€1 million. We're enthusiastic about the opportunities for Nordhealth, and our 2026 guidance reflects our desire to continue to invest in product development for growth.

We're already making good progress in our key growth markets and we will add DACH to that list. At the same time, we'll expand our revenue per practitioner and improve retention by further developing our AI capabilities.

Lastly, regarding the financial calendar, for if we just move on to the next slide, for further information on 2025, our audited financial statements will be published on the 10th of April, and our Q1 2026 results presentation will be on the 12th of May, 2026. The full financial calendar is available on the website.

I'll now turn back over to Charles for Q&A.

Thank you very much. We have a few different questions that we've received on the chat, please feel free to add those on the chat if you would like to ask a question.

What I'll do is I will read out the question, and then I'll answer it. The first question was, 'Why was growth in 2025 slower than in previous years, and how is the outlook for larger veterinary clinic rollouts such as VetPartners [Merivet?]

? The growth was slow in 2025 versus previous years for the exact reason that you highlighted, which was basically slower enterprise rollouts.

We did not roll out any significant large enterprise in 2025 relative to 2024, for example, when we had the CVS rollout, for example. The next on the therapy side, as well, we are focused on migration.

Although veterinary is growing, right, the migrations take the majority of the work on the therapy side, and we don't want to focus both on two missions. We prefer doing things sequentially.

The second is, 'Nordhealth has a very healthy KPI: new ARR, NRR, churn, upsell, LTV to CAC in both business units. When can we expect this to be reflected in improved group profitability?'

That's a great question. The way we look at profitability is that we want to make sure that we're currently building our cloud platforms to become AI platforms, right, the AI distribution layer.

That requires we're spending a lot of money on R&D to do that, right? In addition, right, we are spending money to localize our products for the US, for example, or for DACH on the veterinary side, but also building the platform for Norway and then Denmark on the therapy side.

Once we do have those countries fully migrated, the profitability is normally north of 50% on the EBITDA minus capex side. What we're doing now is just we realize that, as you correctly highlighted, we've got great new ARR, good NRR, churn, upsell, LTV to CAC, but we're trying to replicate that in new markets as well.

We're taking the profits from the Nordics and then investing those in net new areas. The big drivers of profitability: one is growth, that's the biggest driver, right?

The second is that we're at a point where we can't really spend that much more on product development to go faster, and so there's the scaling effects, the operational leverage. Then the third is the migration where now we have to support two platforms as we migrate them like we did on the veterinary side with Provet Cloud and Vetserve, right, we can no longer have to sustain those two cost bases.

What the metric we're always looking at is customer acquisition cost: sales, marketing, net professional services and R&D, and we compare that to the net new ARR that we've meant in. We're looking for at least a 20% ROI on that.

The next question was, 'What's expected profit from legacy and product migrations in their timings?' Probably we had discussed previously that for the Aspit migration, it's roughly a €3 million improvement in profitability that comes from the migration, some of which we get over time, right, because we don't have to pay for, for example, software licenses for people that have migrated, but some that we get at the end, right?

Only when we turn off the server can we no longer have to server. In terms of timing, right, we don't normally provide specific timing on migrations because we target specific user groups and then make sure they're happy and then go on one after the other to the next user groups because we want to make sure we protect against the churn in those markets where we have the dominant market share.

'How do you view Nordhealth getting to the Rule of 40, which would presumably be very beneficial for the company valuation? Nordhealth has drawn very healthy organic growth, particularly the medium term, but margins have been low in recent years.'

I think I answered this in the previous ones, but it's all about operational leverage. The first one is fixed R&D somewhat and scaling revenues.

The second is migrations, and then the third is getting more efficient in CAC to ARR, right, new ARR, improving our go-to-market, but particularly implementation efficiency in the vet business. We've been throwing people at the problem and trying to improve the product, but we can do a lot of work now and automate a lot of work with AI on the product side.

The next questions is, 'You're guiding for midpoint 13% ARR growth and -5% EBITDA margins. Software companies are measured against the industry standard of the Rule of 40.

Your score's below 10 for a market leader in Europe, currently not impressing on either growth, margins, or M&A story. What will make you reach 40 on this score within 3 years, or is this beyond reach for the company?'

On the Rule of 40, it's basically just for everyone to understand, it's the growth rate of we use actually recurring revenues plus the profitability of the business, right? Basically if we grow 13% and we got -5, right, that would be an 8, Rule of 40 of 8, right?

Our goal is to continue growing, right, at north of 13% over time, right, but also improve profitability as I discussed, the three levers that we are playing with over time. I do, however, believe that the first part of the Rule of 40 is more valuable than the second part, right?

If we look at, for example, the churn rates on Provet, which are 1.3%, that is a very, very valuable stream of cash for a very long time that we have. I believe that €1 of growth is worth more than €1 of profitability short term, right, because we can have that for much longer point.

The next is, 'At what point do shareholders get to see operating leverage in the business? Can you commit to a specific year where EBITDA minus capex turns sustainably positive, and what's the minimum revenue run rate needed to get there?

At the IPO in 2021, you guided for 63% EBITDA minus capex margin medium term. Now we are 5 years in, which most investors define as the medium term.'

Very good question. If we look at the IPO slides that we had done, these were growth-adjusted ones.

We can see that these types of margins in the Nordics, but we've realized that these are great businesses, and so we want to get more of those profit pools. We're investing that cash flow to go into net new markets.

We will come back with a guidance, longer-term guidance in the next quarters. The next is, 'Thank you for the update on AI.

Do you think AI could accelerate the migration of vets from legacy solutions to cloud AI PMS?' That's very good questions.

I mentioned earlier in the questions the issue of implementation profitability, which on the vet side has been low as we're trying to subsidize implementation to get them faster on board. There's a huge amount of automation work that can be done with AI.

I'll give you an example is as part of the process, someone has to sort through the list of items that they have between medicines, services, vaccinations, and so on, right? That was done manually historically.

Now we can just upload that to a LLM with all the data, and we can actually get the first draft, which saves a huge amount of time and only the exceptions we have to handle, and we can handle with reasonable certainty. There's a huge amount of improvements in productivity that we can get from AI on implementation.

If we think of the value proposition, right, first is we want to become an AI PMS, right, which is with the outcomes being that it saves you the most time, but also helps you increase revenue by, for example, automatically adding charges and so on, right, making sure we've got good reminders for people to order home delivery for medicines and so on, which is a huge profit drive for clinics. The second one is going live in one day, which is figuring out step by step all the work involved for a net new clinic to go live and trying to automate that work one after the next and have an easy platform which requires no training.

Step by step, we're reducing the level of work required to implement the clinic. It'll be really exciting with Vetera to see that migration as we're going to try to do a fully automated migration for those customers.

The next is, 'Your AI roadmap describes moving from scribe to system of action to agent orchestration over the next 24 to 36 months. IDEXX has a diagnostic data integration that you simply don't have, and Vetspire has a head start on AI native UX.

What specifically can you build in AI that IDEXX or Vetspire cannot replicate given they have larger R&D budgets and, in IDEXX's case, proprietary data sets?' Couple things: one is on the data sets, right?

Actually with all of our partners, we actually send the order from the PMS to IDEXX, Heska, and many different partners, and then they provide back the results in a structured format. Whatever information that they have, we also have in the majority of cases.

That's one on the data sets. We do have very similar data sets on that.

We also have a lot more information on that patient, for all the medical records are not just the diagnostics. I would argue a little bit against the case that the IDEXX diagnostics provide a specific upside on that.

They do also have PMS, they have the same situation in their practice management software. Vetspire is not more ahead of us in AI native UX.

They have a scribe, right, but there are actually other players which have a higher level of sort of AI-incorporated systems. If only R&D budgets were the thing that actually drove velocity.

The velocity at which a player moves is not just throwing money at the problem. We see that IDEXX used to own the largest practice cloud practice management software in the UK called Animana, and that is now no longer the number one system, not because they didn't have the money to invest in it, but money alone does not win a market.

The next question was, 'You currently have 464 employees. Could you break that into subgroups?

How many developers do you have investing in AI in Germany?' I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but I believe that we can think about adding those in future presentations.

The next is, 'Are you happy with the current liquidity of the stock? If not, which specific actions are you taking?'

No, I'm not happy with the current liquidity of the stock. It's very illiquid, and so one share can drive the price wildly fluctuating, as you can see.

We will come back with actions that we're taking. We're getting more exposure to try to going to conferences, and longer-term, as we mentioned, we are looking to potentially do an uplisting as well to another market.

Last question was, 'What are your prospects for winning substantial business in the US over the next 2 to 3 years?' I think the US is the most competitive market we've seen so far in that we are competing versus IDEXX, which was, yeah, on the enterprise side, and we're competing versus Shepherd, Vetspire, and other start-up PMSs on the independent side.

I think the question is more around the enterprise part, right, because that's really what could drive us to win long business. I think that, one, we do have a good product for the US, but we want to be able to truly differentiate ourselves.

Now it's somewhat of a coin toss between ourselves and ezyVet, right? We have a way better architecture to be able to build upon than ezyVet, and we also have a lot more experience doing implementations at scale.

We're way more advanced on the AI side, and that gap is only becoming bigger. I think we've got some very good prospects about winning the US enterprise in the next couple years.

Thank you very much. Thank you for all your questions.

We will see you next quarter. Thank you.

Thanks a lot. Bye.

Bye.