Thank you, operator, and hello everyone and a warm welcome. Thank you for joining our earnings call today to discuss the results for the second quarter and the first half of 2026 with us.

With me today are our CEO, Yves Padrines, and our CFO, Louise Öfverström. Today's conference call is being recorded.

A replay of the call will be available on our website after the call. Additionally, you will find the quarterly report, the presentation, and the press release on our Investor Relations website as well.

Now, let's get started. I would like to turn over to our CEO, Yves.

Thank you, Stefanie. Welcome, everyone, to our H1 2026 earnings call.

You have probably all seen our pre-release on Tuesday with our fully confirmed organic guidance, as well as our expected outlook following the completion of the HCSS acquisition. As usual, we have prepared a short but informative presentation containing the most important information with regards to our second quarter as well as first half year results that our CFO, Louise Öfverström, and I would briefly walk you through so that we have enough time to address any questions you may have in the end.

To begin with, on page number 3, please find some highlights of the most important aspects of the second quarter as well as the first half of 2026. Firstly, I would summarize our second quarter 2026 as very successful, with a continuation of the remarkable momentum we have seen at the beginning of the year.

This development was again, first and foremost, driven by an excellent performance in our Build segment, which continued its outstanding growth trajectory also in the second quarter. At the same time, the Design segment continued to show a strong growth despite the exceptionally high comparison base in Q2.

The reported EBITDA margin in Q2 was impacted by the slightly negative foreign currency translation effect, and in addition, an extraordinary transactional currency effect, as well as M&A-related costs. If we adjust the reported EBITDA margin only for the acquisition-related one-off costs, the margin would have already been at 31%.

With our H1 results, we are therefore where we wanted to be after the first 6 months of the year, driven by the strong increase in recurring revenue in the Design and Build segments, and despite the weaker-than-expected development in our Media segment. The increase in the underlying profitability, excluding FX and M&A effects, demonstrates our healthy operating leverage, the continued focus on our cost base, and continuous improvements and operational excellence.

The foundation for this very strong operational performance is the continued progress we have made across all our key strategic focus areas, whether that is in AI, with a successful rollout of multiple agentic AI-based products, such as Bluebeam Max, our next Design Intelligence platform, and of course, the ongoing subscription transition, and the transformational acquisition of HCSS. These initiatives and investments are not only paying off already today, they are also making sure the Nemetschek Group is fully prepared for the future.

Based on our very successful start of the year, as well as the continued progress on our strategic initiatives, we are therefore well on track to once again reach all our goals for the financial year, and therefore fully reiterate our organic outlook for 2026. In addition, we also expand our outlook following the acquisition of HCSS, but more details on that later in our presentation.

On page number 4, you see an overview of the corresponding figures to the Q2 development that we just discussed. Overall, we continued our strong growth dynamic and delivered another very good quarter and a strong finish to the first half of the year 2026.

Starting with the ARR, or annual recurring revenue, as a result of one of our key strategic priorities, the transition to a subscription and SaaS-centric business model, our annual recurring revenue recorded an increase of +15.9%. If we adjust for the FX headwind we had in the second quarter, mainly stemmed from the weaker US dollar, our ARR increased by +17.4%.

The main driver behind this strong growth were once again the revenue from our subscription and SaaS offerings, which increased by +29.6% in constant currency. Thanks to this substantial growth in our recurring revenue base, we were able to strongly increase our revenues once again, despite a very high comparison base in our Design and Build segment and the weaker-than-expected performance in Media in Q2, by +13% on a reported basis.

On an FX-adjusted basis, the growth even amounted to +14.5%. The main growth driver was once again the exceptional performance of our Build segment, in particular Bluebeam, which continued to benefit from strong network effects, its successful international expansion, and the unprecedent investment in data centers.

In addition, we also saw a good growth in the Design segment, which continued its successful subscription transition, including the sale of multi-year contracts to convert existing maintenance customers to subscription. The EBITDA increased by 11.5%, +15.8% FX-adjusted, to €98.6 million in the second quarter, corresponding to a reported EBITDA margin of 30.1%.

However, in addition to a slightly negative translation currency effect stemmed from the weaker US dollar, the EBITDA was also impacted by an extraordinary transactional currency effect. This effect, in the higher single-digit million euro range, resulted from the revaluation of assets and liabilities held in a non-functional currency of an individual group company as of the reporting date due to the significant and unexpected exchange rate fluctuation during the quarter.

Furthermore, the reported EBITDA margin already includes acquisition-related one-off costs of a low single-digit million euro amount. Adjusted for this one acquisition-related cost only, the EBITDA margin in Q2 amounted to 31%.

Finally, net income for the quarter, also driven by a strongly improved financial results, grew over-proportionally by 20.3% to €66 million, resulting in earnings per share of 57 cents. Before Louise will dive deeper into our Q2 financial results as well as the first half of the year, I would like to use this opportunity to also give you an update on our defined strategic focus areas and the various highlights in the first 6 months of the year on page number 5.

Starting on the left side, artificial intelligence plays a pivotal role for us, not only in optimizing our own internal processes and productivity, but especially in advancing our product development to deliver even greater value to our customers and shareholders. Our goal is clear: to become the construction AI leader.

We are deeply convinced that AI represents a tremendous opportunity, and we are ideally positioned to capture it. Over decades, we have built deep knowledge, expertise, and strong integration into our customers' workflows, as well as long-standing, trusted customer relationships, strong network effects, and vast industry-specific data sets across the entire lifecycle, primarily for buildings, and now with the acquisition of HCSS, also in the infrastructure and heavy civil sector.

Over the past months, we have already introduced several truly value-adding AI features into our product portfolio. For example, we successfully rolled out our agentic AI suite, Bluebeam Max.

Bluebeam Max supports users with time-consumed tasks such as quality control in the pre-construction phase, document analysis, quantity takeoff, and 2D-to-3D conversion, thereby increasing productivity and efficiency throughout key construction processes. In addition, we launched our next-generation Design Intelligence platform that use AI and integrated simulation to help teams in the design and planning phase to make better decisions during the design process.

As you all know, one of our absolute top priorities over the last few years was strengthen both our resilience and long-term growth potential by increasing the share of recurring revenue through our transition to a subscription and SaaS-centric business model. I'm very pleased to say that this transition is progressing extremely well.

We are seeing strong momentum across the group, especially in the Design segment, where the pace of the shift continued to be high. As a result, we reached a new record share of recurring revenue for the group, a direct result of the dynamic growth in our subscription and SaaS business.

Over the past 6 months, we have continued to enhance our go-to-market approach even further, especially by expanding our international presence and the successful internationalization of our brands. Our goal is twofold: first, to make our business more resilient by reducing our dependency on a single market or region; and second, to unlock new growth opportunities for the Nemetschek Group in high-potential regions.

This is why we continued our expansion into high-growth markets, such as Southeast Asia, to complement our expansion into India and the Middle East as Nemetschek, representing the full portfolio of the group. Going forward, we will continue this strategy and expand into new markets and region in the coming quarters and years.

M&A has always been an integral part of the Nemetschek Group's DNA and a key driver of our long-term success story. We have a strong track record of highly successful and value-accretive acquisitions.

The latest example, which is also the largest acquisition in the Nemetschek Group history, is HCSS, which increase our market opportunity by 30% in the highly attractive infrastructure and heavy civil market. By combining HCSS with our leading brands in the Build segment, we create the next construction tech giant, with a unique combination of scale, growth, and profitability, and a global construction AI and technology powerhouse covering the full range of end markets and customer segments.

In addition, we also did some smaller technology acquisitions, such as Morpholio, which is a leading provider of mobile design apps for architects and designers, which strengthens our design ecosystem by seamlessly connecting early-stage conceptual design and sketching with professional BIM/CAD workflows while adding differentiated AI and mobile capabilities. Another very small bolt-on acquisition was Enscape, which strengthens our AI capabilities in pre-construction and construction document workflow, and will therefore further enhance Bluebeam Max with specialized, workflow-driven AI.

These acquisitions are mainly technology-centric, with almost or very, very low revenue. In parallel, we are also continuing our dedicated venture investment strategy.

Over the past years, as we have made several minority investments in highly innovative, AI-driven startups, which align perfectly with our long-term AI and technology strategy. A good example is our recent strategic investment in Daoox, which strengthens our long-term AI strategy by enabling trusted data ecosystem and secure data exchange, key prerequisites for the next generation of AI-powered and agentic workflows across the AEC/O lifecycle.

There is no construction AI without trusted AI, and this is why Daoox is helping the market with. Last but not least, in the area of business enablement, we work on a further harmonization and further enhance operational excellence across the Nemetschek Group.

Artificial intelligence also plays an increasing role internally, for example in software development, customer success, and support, etc., and we are increasingly leveraging AI to further enhance efficiency and harmonize processes across the group. With that, I hand it over to you, Louise.

Thank you, Yves, and a warm welcome to our earnings call for the second quarter as well as for the first 6 months of the financial year 2026 from my side as well. Yves has already touched on some of our key financial figures, I would therefore now give a deeper look at and a bit more detail on the results and underlying drivers behind the most important financial aspects of our Q2 and of the first half year of 2026.

I would say in line with what we just heard from Yves, I see the first half of the financial year 2026 as a strong testament to our strategic direction, with higher profitable growth, as well as good and consistent progress in all our strategic focus areas. On page number 7, you can see a summary of the results of our strong progress in the first half year of 2026.

Let us start with our top-line development here. For the period of January to June, we recorded a reported growth of 11.9% to €640.7 million.

We adjust for the continued FX headwinds, especially in the first quarter, and those are mainly stemming from the weaker US dollar, we achieved a strong revenue growth of 15.7%. As expected, and fully in line with confirming the good progress of the execution of our strategic roadmap, the main growth driver was once again the recurring part of our business.

This is reflected in our annual recurring revenue, ARR, which increased by 17.4% at constant currencies to €1.25 billion, and that is driven by our subscription and SaaS revenues, which grew by an impressive 32.4% at constant currencies, reaching €514.7 million. Our reported EBITDA increased by 16.5% to €197 million in the first 6 months of the year, and that corresponds to a reported EBITDA margin of 30.7%.

However, negatively impacted by the aforementioned extraordinary transactional currency effect in the higher single-digit million euro range in Q2, and as well, as mentioned by Yves, by M&A-related costs. Adjusting for the M&A-related costs in the first half of the year only, the EBITDA margin reached 31.5% in the first half of the year.

Our profitability development in the first half of the year and the expected strong underlying improvement in the second half are fully in line with the guidance we provided in March, and consistent with the seasonal patterns we have seen over the past few years. We therefore remain very confident to achieve our full-year EBITDA margin guidance of 32% to 33%, driven by our abilities to scale, our healthy operating leverage, our relentless focus on cost efficiency and effectiveness, as well as continuous improvements in operational excellence, despite ongoing investments into the strong future growth of our business and the ongoing subscription transition in the Design segment.

Lastly, the right-hand side of the slide highlights our continued good cash generation and the high quality of our balance sheet, despite the expected and deliberate increase in net debt of around €100 million at the end of the quarter to prepare for the closing of the HCSS acquisition as of July 1st. Let's turn to page 8, where you will find the development of our four segments during the first half of 2026.

Starting on the left side with our Design segment, as usual, in the first 6 months of the year, the segment recorded a growth of 7.3%, which is 9.7% on a constant currency basis, to €279.1 million. The transition to a subscription and SaaS-based business model continued to be the main growth driver, just as expected, and progress successfully and according to plan, reflected in the very strong growth of this revenue category of 50.4% on a FX-adjusted basis.

During the first half of the year, we continued to sell multi-year contracts to support the migration of existing maintenance customers to a subscription-based model at Graphisoft and Allplan brands only. Despite a strong underlying operating performance, as you can see, the reported EBITDA margin for the first half contracted to 23.9%, and this reflects an impact from an extraordinary transactional currency effect.

As mentioned, this effects in the higher single-digit million euro range resulted from the revaluation of the assets and liability held in a non-functional currency of one of our individual group companies. As of the reporting date, there were significant and unexpected exchange rate fluctuations during the second quarter in that single currency.

Excluding this effect, the segment's margin would have been strong and more in line at a comparable level to last year. Continuing with our Build segment, that continued to deliver a stellar performance also in the second quarter, driven by high underlying growth in new users in the US, but also internationally.

As a reminder, in 2025, the Build segment benefited from the inorganic contribution of GoCanvas, as well as by temporary positive effects following the successful completion of Bluebeam's subscription transition. Consequently, and as fully expected, growth moderated somewhat in the first half of the year of 2026, yet at a still outstanding high level.

For the first half year 2026, the segment recorded revenue growth of 21.1%. Excluding the still significant FX headwind from the weaker US dollar that especially hits this segment, the growth reached a high 27.1%.

The EBITDA margin in the first half in this segment reached a very strong 39.8%, an increase of around 520 basis points year-on-year, and that is despite continued investments to support the strong expected future growth. Let us move on to our smaller segment, Manage, which recorded a growth of 3.9% on a reported and 3.8% on a FX-adjusted basis in the first half of the year.

Here, we saw continued good demand and a well-stocked sales pipeline across both existing and new customers, particularly in the public and financial sectors. This provides a strong foundation for growth acceleration in the second half of the year, in line with our guidance.

Especially during the end of the second quarter, growth accelerated, particularly for software solutions in the areas of workspace management and energy efficiency, and therefore increased growth rates at the end of the quarter towards double-digit revenue growth already. For the first half of the year 2026, the segment's EBITDA margin amounted to 7.8% versus 9.3% amid continued investments into the future expected growth of the business.

Last but not least, let me come to our Media segment, where the reported revenue declined slightly by 0.7% to €59 million, while the FX-adjusted growth amounted to 3.3%. The segment's business performance was impacted by the ongoing challenging market environment, as mentioned, especially in the important US market, and where customer spending simply remains cautious, and decision-making and sales cycles continue to be strongly prolonged amid ongoing customer consolidation and subdued spending on content creation as well.

Also here, the last month of the quarter showed first signs of stronger growth acceleration than seen in the earlier part of the second quarter, but the market remains challenging. The EBITDA margin of the segment expanded in the first half to 29.8% from 28.1% last year.

In addition, during the first half of the year, the Media segment has laid important foundations for higher future growth, including diversification and the launch of new product like ArchViz, rendering solution, to further drive expansion into the AEC/O industry, and also the introduction of a digital twin solution for real products, only to mention a few in this segment. Let us now turn to slide 9 and to a topic that has been a regular feature of our earnings call over recent years: the successful transformation of our business model towards subscription and SaaS.

The progress we have made is clearly reflected in the revenue mix shown on the left of the slide. In the first half of 2026, recurring revenues reached a new record level of 95% of group revenues.

Subscription and SaaS revenues now accounts for 80% in the group, compared to only a small proportion of our business when we began this transition. The middle of the slide puts this whole development into a longer-term perspective.

Since the first half of 2022, total recurring revenues have increased from €250 million to €609 million, mainly driven by the strong subscription and SaaS revenues, which have increased from €93 million to €515 million. This means that we have expanded this more predictable and resilient revenue stream by more than 5 times within less than 4 years.

The momentum also remained strong in the second quarter here. ARR and recurring revenues both grew by 17.4% at a constant currency, while subscription and SaaS revenues increased by 29.6% at constant currency.

At the same time, license revenues declined by 40.8% at constant currency. This is, as intended and a consequence of our transition, as customers now increasingly move from perpetual licenses or completely move from perpetual licenses to subscription offerings.

Licenses therefore now contribute only to 2% of total group revenues, and therefore have an increasingly limited impact on our overall performance. All together, the figures on this slide demonstrate that our business model transition remains fully on track, and continues to strengthen the quality, the visibility, and the resilience of our revenues going forward.

As usual, and to conclude our revenue of the first half of 2026, we provide a more detailed overview of the key P&L and cash flow items here on page number 10. We have already addressed our main KPIs, such as revenue growth and EBITDA margin in more detail, and therefore, let us now have a closer look at the details of our cost base and at its underlying drivers.

Here, you can see that we are seeing strong leverage in our OpEx structures, driven by economies of scale in our growing portfolio, and also our relentless focus on both cost efficiencies and also cost effectiveness. That also was a clear trend throughout the first half of the year 2026.

Let us have a closer look at the personnel cost, the largest component, with a share of roughly 50% of our total operating expenses. Here, we saw a reported year-over-year increase of 7.1% in the first half of 2026, which is clearly below our revenue growth, despite impacts of personnel costs that we had from the technology acquisitions, the smaller acquisitions we made, and also some seasonal differences.

In other words, thanks to our healthy operating leverage, our various operational excellence initiatives, our cost base grows at a very reasonable pace, and therefore contributes nicely to the continuous increase in underlying profitable growth. The higher-than-usual increase in other operating income and expenses, as you can see here, is mainly attributable to the M&A-related costs of the HCSS acquisition.

Going further down the P&L, you see the over-proportional growth in our earnings per share, with an over-proportional increase of 29.9%. This strong development is supported by a strongly improved financial results, which is driven by a substantial positive effect in the other financial income and resulting mainly from the hedging we did in conjunction with the acquisition of HCSS.

Coming to the cash conversion after the first 6 months of the year, that came in below the high level of 180% in the prior year. Whilst the underlying cash conversion is unchanged, very strong and high, the quarter was primarily impacted by a number of special effects happening in the second quarter.

The main effect coming from a change in invoicing timing for Bluebeam, as Bluebeam is a major part of our portfolio that has an impact. It doesn't have a revenue impact.

It has a one-time effect on the cash. That's why not a lasting effect, but a one-time effect.

We had some tax prepayments. We had some negative foreign exchange effects that all concluded into the second quarter, and there was a smaller effect on the cash flow impact from the multi-year contracts.

If I were to exclude these extraordinary effects, the cash conversion for the first half of the year would have been around 110%, and therefore broadly in line with the prior-year level. Whilst we had special effects in both years, the average still circulates around and above 1, based on our operating performance as we are used to.

Despite the increase in net debt at the end of the second quarter, in line with our strategic acquisition roadmap, as well as additional debt incurred after the closing of the HCSS deal in the third quarter, we maintained a very solid balance sheet. In addition, thanks to our aforementioned good operating performance, as well as a very strong cash flow generation, we will be able to very quickly delever and return swiftly to our usual outstanding balance sheet metrics.

All in all, I believe it's really fair to say that the financial performance in the second quarter builds on the very strong start to the year and concludes a very successful first half of 2026. With that, I hand it back to you, Yves.

Thank you very much, Louise, for this comprehensive overview of our financial results. As we come to the end of our presentation on page number 12, I would like to turn to our organic guidance for the current financial year 2026, as well as expanded outlook following the acquisition of HCSS.

As highlighted earlier in the presentation, our H1 results are fully in line with our expectations, and we have laid a very good foundation to once again achieve all our targets for the financial year. Based on the strong fundamentals, as well as our very resilient operational business model, we fully confirm our organic guidance for fiscal year 2026 after the first half of the year.

We continue to expect an attractive growth at a high profitability in 2026 as well, even despite the high comparison base of the previous year, as well as the ongoing subscription transition in our Design segment. In particular, the executive board continues to expect a revenue growth at constant currency of 14% to 15%.

In addition, the EBITDA margin is forecasted to be in the range of 32% to 33%. Excluding only the acquisition-related one-off costs, the EBITDA margin expectation would have even been at the upper end of the guidance range.

Following the first-time consolidation of HCSS as of July 1st, 2026, the executive board estimates an additional, currency-adjusted contribution to the group revenue growth, after taking into account the currently estimated PPA effect, of around 600 basis points in the financial year 2026. Including the acquisition-related one-off costs, and therefore, starting from the midpoint of the reported organic EBITDA margin guidance of 32% to 33%, a dilution of around 150 basis points is expected following the HCSS acquisition.

This mainly reflects the expected impacts of the purchase price allocation for HCSS, as well as ongoing integration expense and recurring expense related to a newly established share-based compensation program designed to support and drive value creation in the expanded Build segment over the coming years. The mentioned PPA effects, and here in particular, the deferred revenue haircut mandatory under IFRS, will be recognized over a period of 12 months, and is expected to be front-end loaded, with a majority being recognized during the first 6 months after closing.

Based on preliminary estimates, it is therefore expected to reduce the revenue contribution of HCSS by a mid to high €20s million amount in the second half of 2026, with a corresponding impact on the EBITDA. Please let me highlight here that these figures therefore do not yet reflect the full potential of the HCSS acquisition.

In this context, however, I would also like to emphasize that in addition to our standard remarks that the guidance is based on our assumption that there are no material changes in the global macroeconomic or industry-specific conditions, our expanded guidance is also based on the fact that the financial contribution of the HCSS acquisition for fiscal year 2026 remains preliminary, as the final financial impact of the acquisition, including the resulting PPA charges, will only be finalized later this year. To conclude and summarize the presentation for the first 6 months of the year 2026, our financial results, along with our fully confirmed organic guidance, show that we are, once again, delivering on our promises and goals.

This is true for operational developments, where we continue to show industry-leading growth, and also for key strategic initiatives, which builds the basis for our continued high and profitable growth in the future. With that said, I would like to thank you for your attention, and we are now ready to take your questions.

Operator, please back to you.

Hi. Afternoon, Yves and Louise.

I've got three questions, please. Firstly, just as Bluebeam Max has been available through that reseller channel now for a little bit of time, what are you seeing in terms of the early adoption rates?

Any feedback there would be helpful. Secondly, on Media, I acknowledge those growth initiatives you're putting to work to turn around the segment performance.

Curious how patient you're willing to be with the segment if the growth doesn't start to meaningfully uplift,

and I guess,

relatedly, how important is the architectural visualization it brings to the Design segment, or if this segment does remain structurally dilutive to group growth, would you consider different solutions for it? Then just lastly, a technical question around the HCSS contribution.

If I look at the guidance, the 6% growth impact you've called out, I think implies about €70 million in the second half, and if I unwind the kind of mid to high €20s million revenue haircut, you're kind of talking around €100 million for H2, simplistically would be €200 million on an annualized basis for 2026. That feels a little light given that HCSS I think you called out did $250 million to $105 million US dollars last year, which I think is about €185 million, and you've obviously talked to the high-teens growth plus you'd expect out of HCSS.

Curious on that bridge. Is that a US GAAP to IFRS translation, and if you can add anything around where you're seeing HCSS growth this year, that would be great.

Thank you.

Many thanks, George. To answer your first question on Bluebeam Max, clearly, as we launched Bluebeam Max first in February, which was only for large enterprise customers, and then we were planning to roll out only in Q3 Bluebeam Max globally also to resellers and to the web, etc.

As we have done that already back end of May. We have around 2 months now for rollout of Bluebeam Max, and I must say that we are extremely positive.

The performance and the rollout is better than planned, but we have to be also cautious because at the end of the day, at the beginning, all the early adopters and the huge fans are the one really jumping on the product. Now we have to see what would be the adoption of Bluebeam Max over time.

Clearly, the feedback that we get is that users are really happy with some of the key features available, for example, the AI-assisted drawing review and smart review. They see clearly speed and productivity gains.

They report that Bluebeam Max lets them do more, do it faster, and with high degree of accuracy, which is, of course, highly important in construction, especially for pre-construction drawing reviews and bid preparation. Then they also like this link between PDF and BIM, where we are now, this architect and BIM-oriented teams, they really like the fact that we're able to connect 2D mark-up to BIM models and pushing comments back into, for example, Revit or ARCHICAD and other design tools, which reduced rework, and then also miscommunication between PDF review and authoring tools.

Of course, as I said, we are for the moment onboarding the super users, and the good news is that we are clearly evolving now our product roadmap for Bluebeam Max. There will be also new features available within the next few months and before even the end of the year.

This is why also we had made this very small acquisition, which is just this small tech startup called Mbu, which is no revenue, but really helping us in their technology to accelerate our Bluebeam Max roadmap. Overall, highly positive, and so far in terms of pricing, as it is introductory price, so that's why we have the opportunity to also increase the price after 12 months with some of these customers.

Of course, as we are going to also inject more new features, which should bring more efficiency and productivity gain to our users, we are also planning to have different type of packages, and also probably more consumption pricing model, in addition to the subscription that the user are paying for. For the moment, our main focus is to make sure that we have as much adoption as possible.

We need to show that the efficiency and productivity gain is here, etc. Second question on Media, obviously, disappointing performance, and here, the disappointing performance is mainly coming for contraction with our customer base.

This contraction, interestingly, not coming necessarily by AI or whatever. It is mainly due to the fact that we have, for example, more consolidation in the market, especially when you have large M&A going on in media and entertainment, or you have also very large massive downsizing in media and entertainment.

If you take few weeks ago the example of Microsoft's game business units, which downsized by around 3,000 people, and therefore, once we have renewals of some of these accounts, there is a contraction because we have less users than we used to. Now, to try to counterbalance that within the next few months and quarters, which might not materialize too much short-term, but more for next year, we are going to bring more consumption-based type of pricing on Maxon.

Then, we have also, as we said, now launching this rendering solution for architects called Redshift ArchViz, which was first developed on Vectorworks and now also available on Autodesk Revit since June. We announced that at AIA.

It's now also on beta test on ARCHICAD. Of course, for that to materialize and to have significant revenue, it will also take time, it's not like we will see big needle mover change on the revenue within the next few weeks and months.

It will take a little bit longer. Yes, for the moment, it is disappointing.

Now, is architecture and ArchViz an important piece for our AEC business? It is complementing it, but for the moment, we see this business in rendering and still part of the Maxon business, and we see the Maxon business in the Media & Entertainment division of the Nemetschek Group as still a separate business versus our core business, which is in AEC/O.

We are treating this business still separated. Therefore, it's not fully integrated in terms of G&A, etc.

We will do our best now to try to recover, but we are not expecting any longer this high single-digit or even double-digit growth for Maxon this year, and we are reviewing our guidance to be more around the mid single-digit revenue growth for 2026 for Maxon.

Maybe I take then the third question, which was on the contribution by HCSS. I think your train of thought is absolutely correct.

I think you might be slightly off on the numbers. There's no change whatsoever on the growth in HCSS, as expected, of the higher teens, and it's really delivering well.

Where it really differs a little bit is your assumption on the deferred revenue haircut. That's also the only adaptation that we have in the revenue between US GAAP and IFRS, as you know.

That's why, as we have said, it's in the mid to higher €20s million. It's an estimation yet.

We are still working out the detail, as it's customary. You have 12 months to do it.

We will do this as quick as possible, but it needs to do the full calculation. You should rather go to the higher side of that.

If you add that to the normal, also as they deduct that from the normal growth, you're back to the higher teens, and then you have the deferred revenue effect that is impacting the first 12 months, and of course, we are back then to normal in the growth. I think that your contribution of €70 million is definitely too low from what we're expecting.

It needs to be higher than that. Then that's why you need to go to the expected growth, take out that, to say, mid to higher €20s of deferred revenue haircut, and then you are clearly above €80 million, I would say, and that's to say, depending a little bit how much deferred revenue haircut we have, but there's no change whatsoever in the very strong growth in HCSS.

Got it. Appreciate the detail.

Can I just throw one last one in? I guess from an adjusted EPS perspective, which excludes the PPA effects, do you have any updated view on how you think about kind of accretion/dilution, particularly for 2027 at this stage, or not so much?

You have two things in the EPS calculation following the HCSS acquisition. It's PPA, as you say, but it's mainly also the non-controlling interest.

That the EPS is only calculated on our shareholdings, and that's, of course, we need to deduct the 28% approximately that's held now by Thoma Bravo. That's, to say, the bigger impact on the EPS calculation.

What we see, including the PPA and the non-controlling interest factor, we see that 2026, as said, that will not be accretive. 2027 will be more or less flat, and 2028 definitely will be accretive.

It's turning somewhere 2027-20 definitely in '28. If we're really good, it can be in 2027, depending a little bit also on the PPAs, etc.

In general, to say, it's a very strong deal, and that's why it's accretive very early. It's 2027-2028, depending really where it's happened.

We are a bit conservative to say it will definitely be in 2027 2028, will flat in 2027. If we were then to take out the PPA effects, then you are, of course, quicker in the accretion, then you are definitely in 2027, but I think you should also really be mindful of the non-controlling interest there.

Maybe just to give you a little bit of color on the PPA as well, as we are still doing that, depending on, of course, as how we allocate the consideration to the different asset classes that we have acquired. HCSS has a fantastic, strong customer base, and technologies that will be the main areas, and those are, to say, in those categories, we have rather longer amortization periods, right?

That's we are now in the details of how really to allocate that, but that's also how you should be thinking about the amortization on the PPA.

Perfect. Thank you.

Yeah.

All in, it's a strong deal.

Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for taking my questions.

I've just got a couple, if that's all right. The first one is just on the guidance.

It implies a bit of a deceleration in growth in H2, which is as expected, I think, from 12% to 14%. I'm just wondering what would need to happen in order to reach kind of the upper or the lower end of that range.

Then also, as a bit of a follow-up, what are your expectations in terms of each division for the second half? I know you mentioned mid single-digit for Media, but yeah, some comments on the other segments would be useful.

Then just my second question is about investment, and what your priorities are for investment in the second half, and whether there's been any changes to your planned investment based off of the impact that you saw on margins in the second quarter. Thanks.

On the guidance, clearly, we had a very strong H1 with a 16% revenue growth at constant currency. We are therefore highly confident as of today that we will reach our guidance, which is between 14% and 16%.

Now obviously, we are prudent. As also the Nemetschek Group, in our DNA, we are sometimes also quite conservative, and we want to make sure that with all the macropolitical environment that we have currently in terms of any energy crisis and others, and macropolitical aspect, we want to be prudent.

That's why we confirm our guidance, but obviously, we are very confident that we can reach this guidance and probably in a strong way. Of course, we need to see now how Q3 will evolve and also Q4, but yes, very comfortable view for the moment.

If I take then to go to look into the guidance on the segment, we haven't changed our guidance on any other segment than Media is the only one that we have, to say, taken down slightly. Of course, we see a slightly higher growth, you see that Design and Build, especially Build, is performing well.

That's why, to say, to come to the higher end, we should, of course, perform very strongly in all our other segments, and maybe also a little bit stronger in Media, but that's to say, as Yves said, it's more on the realistic side. I think also in the guidance that we have had and seen, I think what we should also always consider, that is in the second half of the year, whilst Build remains extremely strong, as you saw now also in the first half of the year, due to the comparables that we had in the prior year with GoCanvas contribution, but also with the aftermath of the Bluebeam transition into the fully subscription model, we have a plan, to say, a slightly lower growth in the second half of the year for Build, but that's to say in line with our expectation.

That's why we have confirmed all our other segments, and then, to say, maybe towards a bit the higher end here and there, and Media with mid single-digit in the second half. Our priorities and investments in the second half, we haven't changed our priorities and investment.

Of course, we are very strongly invested into our products, into our AI additions in order to continue to serve this market and our customers in line with their expectations and needs, of course, as well as possible. We are continuing also to invest into interesting early-stage ventures, etc.

We are, of course, also continued to screen the market for M&A and the like, our investment priorities have not changed.

Again, just to comment also on your point on the EBITDA margin, purely organically, if you look at our EBITDA margin, as we already indicated, excluding the M&A costs, we would be at the upper end of the range, at close to the 33%, excluding M&A.

Great. Thank you very much.

Yes. Good afternoon, Yves and Louise.

Thank you for taking my questions. I have three, actually.

The first one is still on the guidance. Can you elaborate a bit on your assumptions regarding the multi-year deals you expect in the Design segment for H2, and maybe also for 2027, what kind of lending you expect there?

My second question is on Germany. You are posting again a nice, healthy growth of 14% in H1 after the rebound of H1 last year.

In H2 last year, you flagged a nice win regarding the internationalization of Bluebeam as a tailwind for Germany notably. Is it still the case, or did you benefit now more from also a recovery in the Design segment?

Any color would be helpful there. My last topic is regarding the forex transactional negative impact of Q2.

I fail to see as a region currency you are talking about, because I fail to see a currency which has been quite weak in Q2. USD has been weak for a while.

If it's USD, can you elaborate on the reasons for the timing for doing it now? Would be helpful.

Thank you.

Maybe I'd start with the last one with the FX impact. What we have there, as we have said as well, it's a transactional effect.

It's not, to say, just converting one of our group companies' balance sheet into our euro balance sheet. It is a transactional effect of one of our group companies.

That company is having its own balance sheet in Hungarian forint and holding assets in euro. Was actually not any currency getting weaker.

It was, as after the elections in Hungary in April, the forint appreciated very, very strongly in Q2. This is an extraordinary effect, it's not about one currency weakening, it's really about the very strong and all of a sudden strengthening in the forint.

That's, of course, that revaluation effects hits that group company because the group company holds the assets and liabilities in euros, have their own functional currency in forint, and that's why it changes. When being converted, and this if it is too difficult, please ask afterwards.

We will be able to give more details if you want. That's the effect we see in the P&L.

Just to give you a little bit more detail on it, when we then convert that Hungarian balance sheet into our consolidated euro balance sheet, you can say, well, then you're there, right? Your net effects off.

You don't incur financial loss to the group, but you take that other conversion effect into the other comprehensive income through the equity, and it's non-realized FX gains. Whilst we show the one effect, the transactional effect in the P&L coming from our group company, we have the countering effect of that non-realized FX loss and gain in our equity.

For the whole group, it's not a loss in financial contribution, but in the P&L, you have this transactional effect. That's why it's a strongly extraordinary effect, and it's driven by the Hungarian forint appreciation.

You can see now that it's not weakening in again. It's still at an elevated level versus what it was, but now it's coming back, to say, coming back down again versus the euro, but that is the reason behind.

I hope that was a little bit more detailed, that that's understandable.

That makes sense. Thank you.

Then

regarding Germany, clearly, we had a good momentum in the market. We can see that the momentum is more positive.

Digital permitting is increasing. Now, I would not say that the residential market is booming yet, but clearly, there is a more positive momentum in the market, which is starting to be translated also by better performance also in Design.

Design had a strong performance in Germany in H1 and in Q2, also thanks to move to subscription from some of the existing maintenance customers, but also with new seats and new logos. Then, yes, clearly, Bluebeam has very strong growth in Europe in Q2, especially in Germany.

Overall, a positive impact in the market for both, coming mainly both from Bluebeam and from our Design brands. Then

let's conclude with your first question, that was the question of multi-year's impact in our guidance for the second half of the year. We don't assume neither headwinds or tailwinds from that.

We approximately assume the same level in the second half as we had in the first half. As it's a little bit sometimes a little bit different really to hit the right quarter because it's depending on which customer groups really takes up a multi-year contract versus a normal contract.

You shouldn't expect any additional effects out of that in the second half, or that's at least what we have assumed in the guidance. I think it's important to reiterate, though, that we are now in the second year of the use of multi-year contracts, and you know how the revenue recognition are for those.

If you look at really the impact of multi-year contracts in this year, in 2026, we actually have a headwind from that if you compare 2025 and 2026. If we would have only done yearly contracts in '25 and '26, we would actually have had a higher growth in the Design segment in 2026 because then that revenue that was recognized already in 2025, that would have then come as yearly contracts this year.

That postponed effect that we have in 2025 would have come in 2026. This is just accounting metrics, right?

It is, of course, if we would have only yearly contracts in this year, then of course, the revenue contribution would have been lower. I think it's important always to look at the full circle, as we are using the 3-year contracts to make sure that our customers can convert and go in a safe mode into the subscription transformation, which we know that especially some of the European countries, but also others, some of our clients really wants to have this planning security for the 3 years.

That's why we need to look at 2025 and 2026. To answer your questions clearly, we are not expecting any additional, to say, higher or lower effects.

We are expecting approximately the same level in the second half as we did in the first half.

That's perfect. Thank you for the answers.

Thank you.

Hi. Thank you for squeezing me in.

In the interest of time, maybe I'll just keep it to one. I was wondering if you could maybe share how you are thinking about monetization plans for the AI features outside of Bluebeam.

Obviously, within Bluebeam, we know there is a premium package of Bluebeam Max, but I've noticed where you've introduced AI features in Graphisoft this year, I think also in Allplan as well, it would be great to get know more about how you're planning to monetize features outside of Bluebeam in the rest of the organization. Thank you.

Nay,

clearly here, as you may have seen also, for example, at Allplan, we have this AI Visualizer solution, which we are pricing mainly as a new package, and it's still under subscription, but at a big premium. The same philosophy what we are doing with Bluebeam Max.

You will see us doing that still this year mainly for all rollout of our different Max features. You will see, without disclosing too much, also an Allplan Max package, but other Max packages, etc.

The monetization will be an uplift and growing our average revenue per user by having much bigger premium subscription package still for these AI packages. Then of course, over time, we will bring more consumption model, where then the pricing will be then a mix of both licensing plus tokens.

On the token side, we are for the moment not planning to sell tokens stand-alone. It will be always part of a value-added package, where we may include also some tokens in case with our own tokens.

For the moment, as with Bluebeam Max, our customers, it is for them to have a partnership or relationship with some of the LLM vendor. For example, they need to have a Claude 4 or whatever subscription.

Now of course, we have MCP integration going on for all our different product lines. Of course, we are now embedding more and more also additional AI features in our more basic packages, and here we're not necessarily pricing that separately, but we want to make sure that we have more and more adoption of our AI features.

Really depending now on the customer segment, but also the customer size, we still have a big variation of feedback from our customers. The great news is that all customers are adopting much more AI today than it was a year ago, of course, but that's the case for everyone, including, I assume, you on the phone.

The thing is, if you take, for example, we did a small study recently with architecture firms in Western markets, North America and in Europe, and around 70% of the people responding declared that they do not trust yet fully the output coming from AI in general. There is still some work to be done.

The good thing is that there is a trusted relationship between our fan base and us, they believe strongly in the product that they use on a daily basis, if it is ARCHICAD or Allplan or Vectorworks, or in structural engineering, where they are even more conservative, Risa or SCIA, Frilo, etc. This is why, on our side, it is very important that the intelligence that we bring to our products, thanks to the Nemetschek intelligence layer, are bringing strong reliability.

Therefore, it is key that we have trusted and strong data. That, of course, is key to our success.

Overall, I would say that it is going the right direction, but again, we are in a highly conservative market in AEC/O, in construction, and also in a very SMB market. They are in general more conservative and more prudent than larger enterprise accounts, especially in industrial or manufacturing or automotive or other type of sector.

This is why also, we want to make sure that they're not afraid on the pricing side, and in terms of monetization, for the next few months and couple of quarters and more, it will be still subscription-based so that they have clear understanding and also they can forecast the upcoming costs that they have using our tool. They want also prediction, like all of us.

We want to have some prediction on our costs, and that's why subscription licensing-based type of pricing is still the model that you will see from us for the short term. Mid-term, we may evolve with something more hybrid, but first, we want to make sure that we have strong adoption.

Also, maybe just to add on that, when we do that, and when we go to that value-added, consumption-based hybrid model, if we were to go to that, it's also important that the AEC/O intelligence and the harness and the knowledge graph really lays with what we offer. That is also how we can price in the value addition.

We also can link then the routing to which LLM to use for which kind of workflows, etc., which also, of course, impacts the cost efficiency for our users, also for the use of LLM. That's part of that kind of consumption-based package.

It's not just, to say, to use tokens. It's also that we can make sure that our clients can also then have a strong outcome for a balanced cost contribution, and that's why it's a little bit more than just adding tokens.

We will come back to that when that's going in that direction.

Thank you very much. That's very helpful.

Yes. Hi, guys.

Good afternoon, and thanks for taking my question. Just one for me, please.

I guess if we fast forward maybe 1 year once HCSS is fully integrated, what does the organic growth outlook for the Build division then look like? I guess I'm trying to ask, to what extent does the integration of HCSS mean that the Build division is maybe now more profitable, but perhaps growing slightly slower on an underlying basis, or do you think that with HCSS integrated, the Build division can still grow organically at 20% plus through the mid-term?

Thanks.

Yes, that's currently our view that in a year from now, we should be still in around 20% organic. Then it would be the new organic growth, including HCSS, because HCSS will be fully integrated, and at constant currency.

Of course, the base is getting higher, but we should hold around 20%.

Great. Thank you.

That's because Bluebeam will be higher than 20%, maybe HCSS in the higher teens, so.

Cool. Very clear.

Thank you.

Hi, thanks for taking my questions. Maybe two from my side.

Can you maybe talk a bit about HCSS growth in H1 this year? I'm just conscious of what George asked earlier as well, thinking about H2 contribution.

Obviously, you say 600 bps, and walk us through the bridge. How are revenues generally split between H1 and H2 for HCSS as well?

Then second question, maybe on Design, can you give us an update exactly where you are with subscription transition across brands, and thinking about as we kind of go further with migration, should we expect pricing strength coming back in 2027, and maybe put differently, are you seeing already higher growth from brands that are further into the transition? Thank you.

Thanks, Victor. Maybe to start with the design question, today, if you look at the Design division, we have around 65% of our total revenue in Design which is subscription by the end of Q2.

We are planning to be around 70% by the end of the year, and we are planning to be around 90% plus subscription by the end of 2027. Now, if you look at where we are per brand, clearly Allplan and Graphisoft are still in the middle of the move to subscription for their legacy customer base.

Of course, when you move to subscription, you have a headwind, even though you may say that, yes, multi-year is also bringing some tailwind, but the headwind is clearly there. If you look at Vectorworks, yes, they started subscription already many years ago, but they did it mainly for new seats.

Vectorworks only started their move from legacy customers from maintenance to subscription last September, in September 2025. They will still have some time to go.

Overall, again, around 90% plus of our total Design revenue will be subscription by the end of next year. So 2027 will be still a headwind year for subscription in Design.

The tailwind will probably more come after that in 2028 and slightly beyond. But 2027 will be still a challenging year for Design because of the move and the migration to subscription.

It will be similar to 2026, or yeah.

Of course, also, I think also your question related a little bit to the pricing in Design, if I got it correctly. That's, of course, also the strategy in Design is very much linked to the increasing the average revenue per user, which is also coming by the new products, AI features I say features, but it might be product suites or features adding, enhancing our current authoring models, the Design suites, and AI Visualizer and the like, that you see that will convert more and more into a suite of products.

That's why you also have in the already converted subscriptions, to say, then you, of course, also have a greater flexibility also to increase the average revenue, even if you don't per se increase prices very strongly. I think the pricing policy as such, without adding features and functionality, is rather unchanged.

We always apply price increases, although our main growth is always driven by volume growth, and that would continue. I think what we see a shift now, as we have so much opportunity in the market, is really for the, to say, upcoming increase on the average revenue per user as well, and that's very exciting.

I think to come to the HCSS growth, well, we see the first half of the year, there's no major cyclicality in the HCSS business, so that was a strong higher teens in the first half, and that's what you should generally expect. I think you should not forget, though, and that's very important, the PPA, the deferred revenue effect that we will have over the first 12 months, as those will not be linear.

Those will be front-loaded, they will have a higher impact on the first 6 months. It's nothing we can really steer.

It's due to the accounting principles under IFRS, and that's why you should not assume a linear one. You should contribute like we did also this for HCSS, a stronger contribution in the first half year, and then less towards the second half, and then in a year from now, we are out of that, and we see, to say, the coming back to what we just said, strong higher teens, and then combined with our very strong Build segment as we have it already now in the 20s plus, and then you'll come to that very strong higher growth, as we just alluded to.

Right. Thank you.

Thank you, and good afternoon. Yves, you bought a second reseller this quarter focused on Vectorworks in Germany and Switzerland.

You're paying over €50 million, and it only looks like head count increased by 180 quarter-on-quarter. At a group level, you only make €200 million in sales in Germany.

Can you explain how you came to that price and what incremental revenues ComputerWorks brings? Louise, the cash paid was €8 million less than the price you agreed, and for the Australian reseller in Q2, it was €5 million less.

It suggests that you owe the resellers money, because neither of them had any positive working capital. In fact, the Australian reseller had a negative €2.5 million working capital position.

Can you explain why the cash paid is less than the price in the books? I think I noticed this happened a couple of years ago when you bought a French reseller.

Then I've got another question. Thank you.

Sure. Regarding Vectorworks resellers, this is for the Swiss and German market.

It is something that we have done as some of our resellers, and this is something which happened also in the past. There is generation shift with some of our resellers, and we have to therefore look at clearly continuity.

Obviously, most of these reseller and businesses are already in an agent move, which means that when we do such acquisition, it doesn't have really an impact on revenue, or when it does, it's very, very, very low, there is no really strong revenue contribution. How we make the calculations, this is mainly linked to their revenue that they generate, and it is depending on what also they bring as add-on, because some of these resellers also did some localization of the product, they have also some IP.

We are also buying some of the IP around the products, not only for purely the localization, but also the IP which are add-on solutions. Here, the good thing with ComputerWorks is that they had really strong add-on products and features and solutions that they were selling on top of Vectorworks, and this is what we are also clearly buying there.

More or less, it is around 1 time revenue in terms of multiple.

Coming to what we really pay for in this, the purchase price that we generally pay for, that's, of course, the very strong customer relationships that have been built over years, acquired goodwill, to say, which are other assets as well, and also the liabilities, that is also deferred revenue, etc., as they're already on such a model, but it's also cash. Yes, in generally, that's the normal purchase price formula, to say, to do a deduction of cash from what we actually paid.

Whilst these resellers do not try and really have a significantly high cash balance, that's not what we have. It's just a normal price allocation formula what we pay.

What we pay for really, it's very much in line with what I said as well, for the customer relationships and also the revenue, the expertise they have, and also we take over the people and the standing they have built up.

Just to follow up, ComputerWorks is the person who sold you that business is still in business as a reseller, they just sold you the Vectorworks reseller in the countries. Louise, there is zero net assets in ComputerWorks.

The whatever the cash and the debtors and the liabilities, then they're zero. Those are your numbers.

For Central Innovation, it was minus €2.5 million, you took on the liabilities of the reseller for €2.5 million.

Yeah. I think coming back to that ComputerWorks is still active, I don't want to go into way too much transactional details here in the call, but in general, what happened there, there were different businesses, and that was split out.

We took over all the business that related to everything they have done around the Nemetschek Group, and there were some other businesses that we have done. There have been legal splits there in different entities, etc.

Whilst there are still business pursued has nothing to do with the business of the Nemetschek Group, and that's, to say, that's something I cannot comment on because that's due to the private seller. That's the structure.

Everything we bought out, they are not continuing as a reseller with everything, and everything they built up also in terms of, as Yves contributed to before as well, everything they built up and brought expertise into our segment is something that we took out, and there is a smaller portion that they still have that has nothing to do with that business. It just happened to be in the same legal entity that was taken out.

I think that's the transactional structure, which is very important to understand. It's not that they're continuing to and they have no rights to do that either any longer.

That's also not that was not the reason. It's just that they had some completely different business that they take that.

So

Okay. A separate question, Louise, just on multi-year deals, but this is in Design, not in Build.

If I go to the website of CDW, Insight, and SHI, they're all offering 3-year subscription deals paid upfront for Bluebeam in the US and Canada. How long has that been going on, and what proportion of Bluebeam deals come from 3-year subscriptions, and is this related to the €27 million in long-term deferred revenue on the balance sheet, or what caused that long-term deferred revenue?

In Bluebeam we don't use three we didn't use the 3-year contracts for after subscription. We have a full subscription transition in within 1.5 years, more or less, as we had and concluded that already some time ago.

We didn't use 3-year contracts there, and we don't per se use multi-year contracts, except for large enterprise deals and also governmental deals, etc. That's something that we have always used, and we'll always do that.

That's just a very small part of the portion that is linked to these large enterprise deal or, to say, governmental clients. This is what you are referring to is exactly that kind of structure, which is

I can go to Insight's website now and buy a subscription for $1,400 for 3 years

of

Bluebeam Core, and that's me. I'm not an enterprise or a government entity.

What this reseller is targeting is really this kind of clients. We will check on the website.

That is not how that is sold, and this reseller is focused on that. That's why that's the background around that.

The model for Bluebeam is not the 3-year contracts, and that is also not what is offered, and that's also, as we always say, we have a smaller portion in the group in general, but that's not contributing to a larger portion of the Bluebeam growth. As said, that's focused resellers.

I'm happy to come back to you regarding the webpage. That is not what is offered, to say, in general to a client.

That what I just said is the customer type that is targeting with that.

Just to make it clear on Bluebeam, if you take the total Bluebeam revenue, we have some large enterprise customers, too, and in some cases, we have ELAs, and with these enterprise license agreements, there could be also, in some cases, of course, multi-year deals, but all ELAs and potential 3-year deals that we may have from some customers, it represents less than 1% of the total revenue of Bluebeam, less than 1%.

Understood. Thank you.

I think it's very clear, and I think that's very important also to underline that, we have no interest in general in multi-year contracts, right? That's not the subscription business model, and that's not what we're interested in.

As we have said all the time, we use that in order for our customer base we are very, very keen on meeting our customer base where they are, and that's also the planning security. They are always and there will always be, to say, a certain group of clients that will need this, but this is not what is offered actively, and that's not in our interest as we go forward in the subscription model.

That's not the typical contract base that we will have or see or offer.

Is this the cause of the long-term deferred revenues of €27 million?

The long-term deferred revenue for Bluebeam is due to SSAs, so that coming out of this kind of governmental business deals. You were asking about what can be offered and about what today, to say.

What is for the long-term deferred revenue for Bluebeam, what you can see that is coming, but say, this existing contracts that did not convert into subscription, that is still SSA because it's due for more governmental business.

Is the €27 million all Bluebeam, or is there some Build in there?

No. What I just referred to was Build.

Of course, there's a smaller it's a small, to say, Bluebeam is Build, and there's a smaller effect out of Design in there as well, but that's, to say, the effect of Build.

The Design products are sold on 3-year deals with cash paid all in advance as well, then? Because that's what I can see on the website for Bluebeam.

It's 3 years paid in cash all in advance.

No. In general, in general, there's also if there are multi-year contracts, they are paid on a yearly basis.

That's the structure. Then you have some governmental contracts as well.

There you know that you have completely different conditions, and that's a one-off deal, more or less, to say, or very different deals than the rest. There are some contracts that have been paid upfront, but that's not the general model.

The general model is that the multi-year contracts are paid on a yearly basis.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Afternoon, and yeah, thanks for having me on here. Just two.

One on Bluebeam, could you just talk about maybe some the opportunity in penetrating your existing Bluebeam customer base with Bluebeam Max? What could you achieve here over the mid-term in terms of upsell?

On the pricing part, you mentioned the introductory pricing of Bluebeam Max. Just curious what the customer feedback has been specifically on that sort of price uplift versus the value uplift that they perceive, and how's your confidence there on potentially raising prices a little bit further out?

Thank you.

Look, I think on pricing, it's too early to say. We really roll out Bluebeam Max now for 2 months.

I think we will know exactly the price leverage also we have when it will be the time for renewals. Our customers are very price-sensitive, especially when you look at the long tail of small, medium customers.

This $590 US per user annually introductory price, yes, could potentially be increased, but now we need to see the reaction of the customers. Of course, for that, we need also to bring more and more over time additional features, which we are doing.

We will see how we may potentially increase such price or directly jump maybe to a consumption-based pricing. For the moment, we did not communicate on that, but also we have different scenarios in place in our planning, and it will also depend on how the adoption of Bluebeam Max evolve over time, and also the feedback of our user base, which is going to evolve over time, because again, from all the current Bluebeam Max customers that we have, we have very strong early adopters.

They will not have the same feedback than maybe an average Bluebeam users. We need to make sure that we have also feedback from this or more feedback from this average Bluebeam users, and not the strong adopters, and then we will see.

Too early to say.

Understood. Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks everyone for attending. We are looking forward to catching up with you next quarter.

If you have any follow-up questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Patrick and myself, we are available.

Let's conclude the call for today. Thanks again for joining.