Good morning. Welcome to day two of our 54th Annual TMT conference. I'm Josh Buchalter, semiconductor analyst here at TD Cowen. I'm pleased to be joined on stage by my colleague, Lannie Trieu, and Dan Galves and Nimrod Nehushtan from Mobileye. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. Thank you for having us. Thanks. Maybe just to start the conversation, we just got out of earnings season. There were some inventory dynamics, but also it seems like the auto, and specifically your backdrop, is improving. Can you walk through what you guys are seeing near term and into the second half as well? Yeah, maybe I'll take this one. This is Dan. I think the business performed really well in Q1. We grew revenue 27%. Like you said, that there was some safety stock normalization because inventories had ended 2025 really low. Even if you exclude that, we grew 15% or 16% in an environment where the global auto industry was down about 3%. Like we have the last number of quarters, we continue to outperform the industry in terms of our top-line growth. We decided to take advantage of our good balance sheet and good cash flow. We announced a buyback that's intended to offset the dilution from stock-based comp and the Mentee acquisition. I think that was a positive. We talked about some execution proof points around SuperVision, which is an upcoming launch. We did a 2,000 km drive on an unplanned route in the U.S. for the first time with a production level system. Yeah, I think we had a lot of positives to talk about in the first quarter. We see continuation of pretty strong order flow. Our outlook for Q2 was higher than street expectations. For the back -half, there's still a lot of uncertainty out there. We sort of just left the forecast or left the outlook at what I would call probably the lower end of the range that we've been seeing the last five or six quarters. Okay. Maybe one more on this topic, and then I'll pass to Lannie to ask some questions about China. As we think about that back -half outlook, how much of that is indeed embedded conservatism? I think, on the call, you guys described upward pressure to EyeQ demand and really everything seemed to be tracking well. I guess, how much of that is just given what was going on geopolitically, you felt like it was prudent to keep things in check for the back -half versus things you're actually seeing in sort of the timing dynamic with the inventory restocking? Yeah, I think sentiment at the time was basically if companies can hold their guidance for the year, that's a good thing, right? I think we've been kind of in this 9.0- 9.5 million units per quarter range. In Q1 and Q2, it looks like we're seeing some upside from Chinese OEM export activities, some upside from ADAS adoption from our core customers. We're hoping that that continues. If there is production schedule reductions, which we haven't seen yet at all, we'll have some cushion to incorporate that for the back -half. Thank you. Yeah, on that topic, I think a lot of investors are keyed in on weakness within the Chinese domestic market, but China exports seem to be holding up pretty well, and that is a benefit for Mobileye. How do you think about the durability of Chinese exports, especially as companies have talked about demand increasing and looking pretty good over the course of each month this year? I can take this. I think we have been pretty consistent with a couple of Chinese customers in the past few years. What has changed is that we have launched a few new products that replaced non-Mobileye solutions, and that they picked up their export volumes, especially to emerging markets. I think that's the change, that they managed to increase their sales in foreign markets that are not Europe, specifically. Just for reference, two of our bigger customers, Chery and Geely, that have significant export volumes, they have increased their volumes in the export markets by more than 100% in the first quarter of this year. That's created a strong tailwind for us, and we think that it can continue. There is plenty of room for them to grow in the markets that they're now penetrating, which is mostly in Asia-Pacific, in Eastern Europe, South America. They're now working on India. It's still early to see if they can manage to penetrate India. I think what's important to say is that it's not cannibalizing our volumes in Europe or in the U.S. or in Japan at this stage, like the bigger markets for us in sales. It's more about increasing the pie for us because it's new cars in markets that today we're not selling units to. I think overall, the fact that our solutions are proven, cost-efficient, they can pass regulations in the future in Europe if they want. If and when they start selling more in Europe, which they plan to, it gives us a good level of comfort in our relationship with them. Yeah, you also mentioned that India was a new theater of growth for you, and you have the recent deal with Mahindra. Can you talk to us a little bit about the deal structure and products that you're selling to Mahindra? Zooming out on the Indian market, before we talk about Mahindra. It's a very interesting market, although for 10 years, people are saying India is the next China in 10 years. It's been 10 years of saying this, hopefully it will happen sometime soon. In the auto industry specifically, it's the third largest market in terms of number of cars sold per year. Historically, it's been a market for low-cost cars, roughly $10,000-$12,000 per car. In recent years, there is a strong demand there for higher priced vehicles, more advanced features. Mahindra, that's their claim to fame. They sell SUVs at $30,000, and they've been growing in double-digit% year-over-year for multiple years now. I think they're expected to surpass 800,000 units this year. Reach 1 million units in 2028. What's interesting for Mobileye in India is that it's less than 10% ADAS adoption rate today. In 2027, there is a new regulation coming up called Bharat NCAP, and they will mandate emergency braking and potential additional features for new cars sold in India. That organic growth going from 10% ADAS adoption rate to maybe 60%- 70%, or 80%, it can be additional millions of units per year that have ADAS that today do not have ADAS. For us, we have a very good relationship with Mahindra, but also with Tata and some non-Indian OEMs that sell in the Indian market like Hyundai, Kia, like Nissan, Stellantis and others. I think we're well-positioned to benefit from this. One last sentence about the Mahindra collaboration. What Mahindra wants to do is not just to offer ADAS in India, but to take it to the next level and offer advanced ADAS in India. Our deal with them includes SuperVision and Surround ADAS. Two products. They want to have Surround ADAS in roughly 50%-60% of their cars starting in 2028, and SuperVision will be around 10%-15% of their cars. It will position them as not just a luxury company, but innovative, that brings new technologies to the Indian market. For us, it's a very nice growth opportunity. Yeah. I wanted to go back to China for a moment. That's been a tricky market for you and your peers. Like on one hand, they clearly push the envelope from a technology perspective forward, but there's also the pull for localization. They were sort of where you led with SuperVision as well. Can you talk about how you view competing in that market differently than the West and, what are your, I guess, the long-term view of how much growth you can get out of the region? I'll divide it into domestic China markets and export markets. You can also divide it between Chinese OEMs and non-Chinese OEMs. There are multiple dimensions here. With the Chinese OEMs, I think, as we said, we have strong positioning for the export markets. We also have some moderate volumes in the domestic market as well because it makes sense for them to have the same solution for the same car, whether it's sold in China or outside of China. For the non-Chinese OEMs, we think they are more dependent on their ability to sell cars in China, which is hard to predict. There were some years in which there was a negative trend. Last year it changed. VW, for example, managed to start growing again in volume in China. It's hard to predict because China specifically is very influenced by geopolitics, and there could be, due to trade considerations, maybe they'll open up more for Western companies. That's a little bit of what's happening now. Maybe they want to open the door more for European, to improve their relationships with the European market because they want their cars to be sold in Europe as well. It's hard to predict where things will head. I think for us, our focus for advanced technologies is in Europe, U.S., Japan, Korea, not in China. We do want to be participating in the Chinese market because it's a very good proof point. For our technology. I wanted to shift gears and ask about competition a bit. I mean, Mobileye has been the incumbent in ADAS for pretty much as long as ADAS has been something we 've talked about. It's obviously attracted a lot more competition as the market has gotten bigger. Could you speak to Mobileye's differentiation at the EyeQ hardware level and also the software stack and basically, what's Mobileye's right to win on base ADAS, but also the advanced ADAS programs as well? I think we should maybe categorize base ADAS and Surround ADAS as a part of base ADAS. This is like the high-volume market. There is the high-end market for privately owned vehicles and robotaxi market. Kind of three distinct markets, each has its own competitive landscape. For the high-volume market, I think that we pretty much managed to maintain our incumbent position and dominant position. We won more than 98% of the volumes that our customers have published for these high-volume cars in the last three years. We not just managed to maintain our position with our existing customers, we also acquired two new customers, Volvo and Subaru, both never had Mobileye products, or at least not in the last ten years, and they now decided to start working with us again. I think in this high-volume segment, in the entry part of things where cost efficiency is extremely important, but also performance is very important because of regulation and the cost of safety issues. We have around more than 250 million cars on the road. We have never had a recall. Touch wood. This is not wood, but touch something. I think it's a very, very strong proof point, and the cost of replacing us for the OEMs and the risk, it's just hard math for them to do. We do have some competition. Bosch is trying to be more aggressive there. Some small startups, but I don't think that's where the severe competitive pressure that you're referring to is coming from. On the robotaxi side of things, I think obviously we have the front runner, which is Waymo, and Tesla that is kind of contending. There is a herd of companies that are claiming to be a part of the robotaxi landscape in the future, but none of them has proof points yet. Maybe they'll succeed, maybe they won't. Maybe in five years, two years, or ten years, we'll have to see. I think we have, on the robotaxi side of things, our competitive advantage comes from the fact that we own the hardware and the software, that we are working with VW, who's a very scalable OEM, and we have been working on this for multiple years. We accumulated all the data and all the experience, and we're getting close to launching with a scalable partner, with a very cost-efficient system, as opposed to some of the other competitors that use hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per system. When we come to the market, we come from a cost advantage standpoint. With a volume scale advantage. It leaves this high-end sliver in which there is a lot of competitive noise. I think that obviously there are many companies there, but what's important to realize is that the OEMs, especially the big OEMs, are having different interpretations of this segment, and they're trying to understand what makes most sense for them. This is not yet an area they need to have. In some cases, they want it. In some cases, they're not even sure if they want it, as opposed to the base ADAS, which is something they need. This is something that they're contemplating if they need it or not, and this gives way to multiple different interpretations. Some companies want to work with that company. They want to own the software. They don't want to own the software. They want to design the architecture. It's very confusing right now. The volumes there are still very small relative to the high-volume segment. I think it will take a couple of years for the dust to settle in this segment. I think when we launch our products with VW, with Porsche and Audi, it will help us to kind of separate ourselves from the pack in the high-end segment. And. I wanted to make a couple more comments. Please. I think on the, what we'd call the low end, high volume segment, I think the point there is that for what the OEMs need to have in their cars, we continue to win at an extremely high rate. I think this China export, the ability to sustain a fairly meaningful business with Chinese OEMs, the Surround ADAS opportunity for next-gen ADAS at higher prices, it gives us the ability to grow that ADAS business sustainably. I think that's a different kind of perspective on what investors had maybe a year ago on the business. On the robotaxi side, I would say there are front runners out there, but no one's running away, right? Like Waymo has added 100 cars per month over the last six or seven months. That is not really fast scaling. Tesla's still at 20 cars operating. I think that there's time to see this kind of herd come through and see who can succeed, who can execute, and who can't. I think something investors have been, and us too, have struggled with is benchmarking, right? It's like, I don't know what the right way to judge the performance of a Mobileye solution is, right? You regularly, I think, try to inform the investment community, if you're looking at EyeQ chips, for instance, don't just look at TOPS. That's not what your customers care about. Could you maybe provide a little insight on how you win business and what your customers want from you? How much of it is the software layer and the experience you've built up over the last 15 years versus raw chip performance? I think, again, let's separate between what they need and what they want, the high volume part of things, because put yourself in the shoes of a decision-maker at the OEMs. Making a decision that affects millions of cars is a very, very risky one. If you have a delay in the project, for example, the consequences can be tens of millions, hundreds of millions if you have safety issues, if you have quality issues, and you have recalls. It's a huge impact. As opposed to a small project that has high-end technology that is starting with one car that will sell maybe 10,000 units over its lifetime. If it takes longer, if it's too expensive, if it has some quality issues, then you can manage it. It doesn't risk the entire company. I think for what they need, it's primarily the performance, the functional performance versus the cost. It's not just performance, and it's not just cost. They cannot really optimize just for cost because then the risk of performance and recalls can bite them. Performance is not sufficient because if it's too expensive and you apply it on millions of cars, then you're eroding your profit. I think it's really important to be the most optimal solution in this graph between performance and cost, and that's been Mobileye's, I think, competitive advantage since its inception. That's why we're doing our own chips. It's to control the cost and to drive them lower as much as possible. I think in this high volume, what they need, regulation driven, where safety and performance is extremely critical, but also the price is extremely critical, we have a well-recognized competitive advantage, which is evident from the numbers that Dan said about the win rate. In the high end, again, it's more about, I think, a little bit more confusing there. It's not clear what are the benchmarks. What is the benchmark for a Level 2++ system? What's the right performance bar to put for a n FSD-like system as long as it's supervised? Is it 50 hours of mean time between failures, 500, five hours? As long as the driver is responsible, it's not objectively defined yet in the industry, not just by Mobileye. Which is, I think, why there is room for more actors to come and kind of make different claims because there is no clear bar of what is good enough, or what's the minimum you need to meet and what's the maximum, and where each company is stacked according to this graph. On the robotaxi side of things, we have Waymo's reference, which kind of laid out how good you need to be in order to go driverless in cities. I think in that way, it helped us because it created a cleaner environment in terms of the standards. Now we know that if we get to the standard which we're tracking, we can launch driverless in the U.S., which is easier than it used to be. Okay. I'm going to ask one more about the advanced products and then maybe turn it to Lannie to ask about robotaxis. You guys have talked about a growing funnel of advanced ADAS programs. I'm actually going to include, I know you didn't, but I'm going to include Surround ADAS. in that because it's materially ASP expansive. Can you talk about the appetite from your OEMs, particularly in the West, for advanced ADAS solutions? There was a long and slow road for adoption partly because of, I think, EV roadmap issues. Where's the appetite for advanced ADAS now? Is Tesla catalyzing the industry? Maybe you could speak to your funnel for Surround ADAS through Chauffeur. Yeah. I think Surround ADAS funnel is very healthy, and it's more in the category of things they need than things they want, in the sense that its regulation is going to continue to push forward in new features or new use cases that you need to account for in the next two years, three years, which means that the OEM needs to expand their ADAS capabilities in their base cars. They need more sensors, they need a little bit more sophisticated software. This gives a very good tailwind for Surround ADAS solutions, but still, it needs to be very cost-efficient because it's going to be applied for millions of cars. Just to give some reference, our first two customers for Surround ADAS cumulatively have 20 million units sourced. It's not a small science project. This is standard fit across multiple models. With VW as an example, this goes into Volkswagen Golf and their best-selling cars. It's a huge decision on their part. I think in that category, I would say that the appetite is very healthy because it's supported by regulation, but also by, it's a cost-efficient solution, so the decision is easier. It's not like adding $2,000 to your car, which you need to prove to justify this decision. On the high end, I think it's, again, as I said, a little bit more confusing because maybe some OEMs want to start with Level 3, maybe they want to do Level 2++. If I would do a random poll across the OEMs, I don't think that there are one or two solutions that everyone is agreeing will be the next generation. What is the optimal user experience? All of these are still in play. I think the industry is kind of looking in Tesla FSD as a kind of experiment, and what can we learn from this is, on the one hand, it's an amazing product technologically. Really. I'm using it every time I'm in the U.S. It didn't lead Tesla to sell more cars, for example. Maybe they have increased take rate for this, maybe, but this is Tesla customers. Is this indicative for OEMs that have a different customer profile? Will they pay extra like the Tesla customers? This is all under evaluation, I would say, which is why things take longer. Thanks for that. Just to touch on your robotaxi programs from before, I do want to give Josh an opportunity to talk about Mentee Robotics as well. For your robotaxi partners like VW and MOIA with Uber and Beep, can you talk about your current path deployment? You've mentioned that you're on the path to removing the safety driver as well. What are the kind of hurdles remaining for you to remove the safety driver in your cities of operation? I think VW made a couple of announcements earlier this year that are very important. The first one is the operational manufacturing line in Hanover, which means that there is a production line in Hanover that produces robotaxis at scale like a normal car. This is a major accomplishment for them. They invested a lot of resources. It means that now there is a serious production line that can produce hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands of robotaxis at the same quality as opposed to retrofitting robotaxis. Thinking about costs, a major cost driver is manufacturing. Now we have a very scalable manufacturing. Since then, we've transitioned our testing fleets and early deployment fleets to use these cars that come out of the manufacturing line. What we're doing now is basically using these cars, and we need to do a few months of validation to kind of dot the I's and cross the T's that the cars that come out of the manufacturing line are indeed at the sufficient performance and stability, quality, that there are no hiccups in the serial production process. That's exactly what we're doing now, and when we finish this, we can start the sequence of removing, safety driver first, but commercial customers can use these cars and then no safety driver. That's all planned for the back -half of this year. Great. On the topic of cost, I think a lot of investors are trying to figure out the cost comparison between Mobileye's solution and, say, deploying a Waymo or the Cybercab. Can you talk about your cost advantage, and then how should investors think about your ASPs from both a hardware perspective and a recurring revenue perspective as these robotaxis get deployed? Yeah. I think when it comes to the system cost, putting aside the Cybercab because it's obviously a very cost-efficient solution, it just remains to be seen when and how it will be scaled to robotaxis. Referring to Waymo, the current system that we have versus the current system that Waymo have is around between one to five to one to 10 cost difference on the bill of materials of the system. We use off-the-shelf sensors, excluding our Imaging Radar that we developed, but this is a very, very cost-efficient radar. The lidars are off-the-shelf lidars. The cameras are off-the-shelf cameras. Our compute is very cost efficient. It costs small thousands of dollars as opposed to what others are using. I think in the bill of material, there is a significant difference in potentially tens of thousands of dollars of difference. Of course, I cannot talk about their future generation. There is just different speculations, but it is hard to have an accurate assessment. I am sure that they know this, and they are working very hard for multiple years to improve this. I think we come to the market with a very cost-efficient system from day one. That has been our strategy. We knew that we won't be the first mover. In order to carve out market share, having a cost advantage allows us to maybe come with lower price points to consumers and then create traction to our systems as opposed to the Waymos in many ways. I think the volume scaling, like you talked about earlier, is really important too. Having just one facility producing these cars at the same quality without having to move them around. I was at a dinner last night where a company was talking about a three-facility manufacturing process for their vehicles. It makes a big difference that you're getting these products right off a normal assembly line. Yeah. I do want to say, in one minute to take about the robotaxis, I would say competitive dynamics, because I think it's very important and there is a lot of confusion. There are a few driving forces, but I would say that the ride-hailing companies are not necessarily counting on Waymo as a partner, to be mild about it. I think that they consider Waymo and Tesla as potential disruptors in the future, which is why you see them, especially Uber, placing such high amount of bets on different companies. However, what they're really looking for is access to volumes of robotaxis. They really want to be able to buy 10,000- 50,000 robotaxis and start deploying them. It's one thing when they invest in a startup and have equity in a startup to increase the chances of that startup to survive and maybe be an alternative in the future. It's a different thing when they are looking for an actual solution that can be deployed in one or two years. In that sense, probably the only way for them to get these cars is through VW and Mobileye. That's the only, I would say, collaboration that has plans to produce cars in meaningful scale. I think we should just separate between investments and bets that they're doing for long term, having alternatives and having negotiation leverage because they want to have 10 different companies that do autonomous driving. It will help them in the future, so they just invest in them. It's a different thing when they make strategic decisions on who we can partner with for 2027- 2028, or 2029 deployments to have an alternative to Waymo, and to potentially Tesla if they succeed. This is the announcement in Los Angeles, for example, with Uber, which is the first market. There is Lyft, another one. There are a few more cities that probably VW will announce soon. Just to say that. There's obviously a lot of excitement for a good reason on robotaxis. The ASPs are much higher, but the units are much smaller. Any timelines you can give us on when we should expect some level of materiality from that vertical for you? I think you had talked about sort of a $50,000 ASP for Mobileye Drive at the Analyst Day a couple of years ago. Is that still the right number, and can you walk through the split of hardware versus software in that and how it is monetized? I would say that material impact on revenue will not be before 2028, realistically. Although I think that the value creation itself, beyond the financial value, of having a driverless product that can be integrated in cars, will be evident much before. Okay. It depends on what you're saying is material. If material is 3%- 4% bump to revenue, which I think it is, then maybe back -half of 2027 has the potential to do that. Yeah, I was referring to 10% or something like in that area. Yeah. On the ASP, the $50,000, it's actually a little bit higher than that. The way it's structured is roughly a third of it is kind of an upfront payment per car, then the rest is being paid per quarter of operations for each car. That kind of depends on if the car is actually operational. Is it mileage based? It is mileage based, but the accounting of it is a little bit different because we want to create some stability, I would say. It's like a quarterly assessment of how many miles were driven, and then there is a price for that, and we get this on a quarterly basis. Okay. Thank you for that. We're quickly running out of time, but I did want to ask about the Mentee Robotics acquisition. There's perhaps no better use example of physical AI than autonomous driving and ADAS. You guys made a pivot into the broader spectrum of physical AI and robotics with this Mentee deal. Can you walk through the strategic rationale? What IP are you guys bringing? What are they bringing? Maybe speak to the go to market as well. Yeah. We have a minute. Good luck. I wouldn't call it a pivot. It's like an expansion of what we do. I think there are many commonalities in the challenges between robotics and robotaxis. At the end of the day, it's a robot that needs to operate in the real world, engage with humans, be safe, scalable, and functional. So far, the idea was to create a more comprehensive frontier in physical AI in a way that advancements in our AI technology can help us improve our chances to win in robotaxis and in robots. It's a new go-to market. It's not in automotive necessarily. It's a more, I would say, earlier stage of adoption. The synergies are very across the board when it comes to the simulation technologies and the AI architecture, infrastructure for training, even hardware design. Many things that Mobileye is excelling at, Mentee definitely needs, and they're benefiting from this only after a few months of integration. The opposite is also true. It helps the Mobileye team with advanced simulation technologies and data creation technologies that Mentee have developed. We're running out of time, so that's it. The go-to market is more about, it's a little bit too early, I think, to talk about this. It's between manufacturing lines and logistics, and maybe home use is the first market. This is the junction we're at right now. Okay. All right. Well, unfortunately, we're out of time. Dan, Nimrod, really appreciate you joining us again. Thank you very much. Good luck for the rest of the year. Thanks, Josh. Thank you. Thanks, Lannie. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks so much, Nimrod. Yeah, of course.