EPAM
EPAM Systems, Inc.Evidence as of 2026-10-15The desk's Snapshot
3 of 15 open to everyone · members see allRead the full desk report on EPAM
Seven analysts, the debate, the risk review, every claim cited. And the same for every name you hold.
Free plan, no credit card required. Silver opens the full report, $19.99 a month. AI-written · every claim cites a source · Insight, not advice.
Overview · EPAM Systems, Inc.
EPAM Systems, Inc. provides digital platform engineering and software development services worldwide. The company offers engineering services, including requirements analysis and platform selection, customization, cross-platform migration, implementation, and integration; infrastructure management services, such as software development, testing, and maintenance with private, public, and infrastructure management for…
Management team
- Mr. Edward F. Rockwell · Senior VP, General Counsel & Corporate SecretaryFind on LinkedIn
- Mr. Philip Storm · Senior VP & Chief Compliance OfficerFind on LinkedIn
- Mr. Gary Abrahams · VP, Corporate Controller & Chief Accounting OfficerFind on LinkedIn
- Mr. Yuriy Goliyad · Head of Global Operations & Senior VPFind on LinkedIn
Start free to see the full management team.
Links open LinkedIn searches, not verified profiles. Team data from our market-data vendor's company profile.
Moneyta sentiment
Where the published evidence leans after the desk debated it, not a rating or a recommendation.
−0.2 on a −2 to +2 scale.
What builds the score
Solid bars are analyst rubric scores; faded bars are computed directly from data. Claims dropped in debate count for nothing; weakened claims count at half weight.
Editor's note
Written after the debate settled. The rest of the page is the evidence behind it.
The evidence balance is Mixed ( -0.2 of a possible +2; was -0.2 before debate) with high confidence. Recent quarter-level figures show revenue of $1,401,061,000 in fiscal Q1 2026 (fiscal quarter ended 2026-04-30), $1,414,767,000 in fiscal Q2 2026 (fiscal quarter ended 2026-07-31), and $1,394,373,000 in fiscal Q3 2025 (fiscal quarter ended 2025-10-31). Operating income in those quarters was $116,768,000, $152,222,000 and $144,943,000 respectively, and diluted EPS were $1.52, $1.97 and $1.91.
The company has been actively repurchasing stock, with repurchases of $323,980,000 in fiscal Q1 2026 and $85,000,000 in fiscal Q2 2026, and shares outstanding have fallen from 55,696,909 to 51,586,981 across the reported dates. Cash and cash equivalents fell from $1,296,077,000 as of 2025-12-31 to $789,397,000 as of 2026-06-30, long-term debt remained small and stable near $25,000,000, and trailing multiples show P/FCF 36.71, P/E 16.47, and EV/EBITDA 8.89.
How this note was made
every stage ran before the note was writtenAnalyst desk
Mercer, Oakes, Nash, Ellis, Yates, Talbot and Archer. The desk: named AI agents, not people. Each reads one slice of the evidence and nothing else (no outside knowledge, no browsing), so every finding traces to a source you can open.
Reads the XBRL figures companies file with the SEC (revenue, margins, income, debt and share count, quarter by quarter) and reports which way the trend is running.
Revenue was $1,401,061,000 in fiscal Q1 2026 (2026-01-01 to 2026-03-31, 3mo) and $1,414,767,000 in fiscal Q2 2026 (2026-04-01 to 2026-06-30, 3mo); the company reported $1,394,373,000 in the quarter ended 2025-09-30 (fiscal Q3 2025, 2025-07-01 to 2025-09-30, 3mo).
XBRL companyfacts · 0001352010-26-000029Cost of revenue was $1,012,052,000 in fiscal Q1 2026 (2026-01-01 to 2026-03-31, 3mo), $985,199,000 in fiscal Q2 2026 (2026-04-01 to 2026-06-30, 3mo), and $983,169,000 in the quarter ended 2025-09-30 (fiscal Q3 2025, 2025-07-01 to 2025-09-30, 3mo).
XBRL companyfacts · 0001352010-26-000029Reads the filings themselves, above all the year-over-year diff of Item 1A risk factors: which risks a company added, dropped or quietly reworded since its last annual report.
Which filings the desk reads
The desk reads the annual 10-K in full: its risk factors, and how they changed since last year. Quarterly 10-Qs and event filings (8-Ks, insider Form 4s) are listed for context but not read line by line: the 10-K is where the material risk disclosures live. A brand-new company, or one we have only just begun tracking, may have no annual report on file yet; its risk analysis fills in once that lands.
In the Form 10-K filed 26 February 2026, EPAM stated that as of December 31, 2025 approximately 14,100 of its global delivery, administrative and support personnel were based in Ukraine and Belarus.
10-K filed 2026-02-26The Form 10-K filed 26 February 2026 added risk language stating that if EPAM is unable to keep pace with the adoption and use of AI technology in its business and effectively implement AI in workforce planning and deployment, the company 'could become less competitive in our industry.'
10-K filed 2026-02-26Reads the signal panel above (momentum, volatility, drawdown, relative strength and beta) and ranks each against the whole research universe rather than judging it in isolation.
Three-month momentum is +30.8% as of 2026-10-14, placing short-term price change in positive territory.
Moneyta signal set · 2026-10-14weakened in debateSix-month momentum is -10.7% and the 6-month relative strength versus SPY is -20.7%, with momentum_6m ranked at the 26th percentile of the 882-stock research universe.
Moneyta signal set · 2026-10-14weakened in debateReads which funds hold the name and at what weight, plus insider Form 4 filings, to show the exposure you may already carry through index funds.
Institutional reported holdings totaled "$4.51B" as of the 13F period ended 2026-06-30 (13F filings carry a 45-day reporting lag).
13F holdings · 445 filers · as of 2026-06-30BlackRock, Inc. was the largest reported institutional holder with "$526.7M" reported as of the 13F period ended 2026-06-30.
13F holdings · 445 filers · as of 2026-06-30Reads recent headlines that are genuinely about this company, ignoring rating chatter and market-wide stories. Findings argue in the debate but never move the sentiment score.
Multiple distinct outlets report that EPAM launched a new AI services offering for development and testing of frontier AI models for enterprise workflows (announced early October 2026).
News · finance.yahoo.com · 2026-10-05Coverage describes the new offering as focused on high-fidelity data generation, model evaluation, and simulation or reinforcement-learning environments to help frontier models handle complex, multi-step enterprise workflows.
News · simplywall.st · 2026-10-11Reads parsed Forms 3/4/5: who bought or sold, at what size, and whether a 10b5-1 plan was involved. Flags clustered open-market officer buying; treats plan sales as routine and never counts a fund or 10%-holder as an officer.
Fejes Balazs (CEO, President, Director) reported an open-market purchase of 412 shares for "$49k" on 2026-09-01, reported on Form 4 with action code F.
Form 4 · Fejes Balazs (CEO, President, Director) · $49k code F · 2026-09-01The parsed summary for the 180-day window lists "bought": "$0", "sold": "$0", "net_shares": "0", and "distinct_buyers": 0 (no cluster detected); the single Form 4 transaction is below the $100k cluster threshold reflected in the summary.
Form 4 · Fejes Balazs (CEO, President, Director) · $49k code F · 2026-09-01Reads the implied-expectations math built from the company's own filings (the growth rate today's price would justify, and the multiples beside it) and argues whether the market's bar looks high or low for this business. Never turns the math into a target.
The model/calculation shows the price implies a free cash flow (FCF) growth rate of 24.47% (0.2447).
Valuation inputs · SEC XBRL + stored EOD closePrice-to-free-cash-flow (P/FCF) is 36.71 based on trailing twelve-month FCF of $163,208,000 and the stated price.
Valuation inputs · SEC XBRL + stored EOD closeDebate and risk review
A bull and a bear contest the claims and the chair rules on each; the risk review stress-tests what survived.
A bull and a bear argue the analysts' claims across two rounds, then a chair rules on each one. Only what survives feeds the score. The argument is shown, not hidden, so you can judge the reasoning yourself.
Several contemporaneous claims point to constructive operational and capital-allocation dynamics: sequential quarterly operating income, net income, and EPS (fundamentals-2, fundamentals-3, fundamentals-4) are positive signals of profitability; active share repurchases and a falling share count (fundamentals-5, fundamentals-6) amplify per-share metrics; trailing P/E and EV/EBITDA (valuation-2, valuation-3) show valuation multiples that are not extreme relative to many growth stories, while a model-implied FCF growth rate (valuation-0) supports a growth narrative embedded in the price. Market signals also support a favorable read in the short term: three-month momentum is strongly positive and volatility is elevated (market-0, market-3) which can accompany rapid re-rating episodes, and low correlation/beta versus the S&P 500 (market-4) indicates idiosyncratic drivers. Recent news of a new AI services offering and related business developments (news-0, news-1, news-2) aligns with the firm highlighting AI in disclosures (filings-1) and may be a company-specific catalyst cited by some analysts; institutional ownership and presence in ETFs (ownership-0, ownership-3) show ongoing institutional and passive exposure. In response to bearish points about cash declines and institutional outflows, the company’s buyback activity and falling share count (fundamentals-5, fundamentals-6) provide offsetting evidence about capital deployment priorities, and long-term debt remains small and stable (fundamentals-8), which affects balance-sheet interpretation.
Chair's verdict, claim by claim
Fragility · computed, not argued
balanced0.37
36 surviving claims rest on 15 distinct sources; the heaviest analyst carries 25% of them, and 96% of what the desk raised survived the debate.
The read rests on a moderate number of independent sources but a quarter of the surviving claims trace to a single analyst’s work, and almost all desk assertions survived internal debate. That combination raises confidence in the coherence of the narrative while flagging potential concentration risk and limited adversarial testing — the evidence is informative but somewhat fragile to a single analyst’s errors or to new filings.
Peer context · computed, not argued
12-1 momentum ranks 6th of 11 in Information Technology Services (as of 2026-10-14).
6-month relative strength ranks 7th of 11 in Information Technology Services (as of 2026-10-14).
90-day volatility ranks 4th of 11 in Information Technology Services (as of 2026-10-14).
Disconfirming evidence · base rates · falsifiers
Context
Outside consensus, and where this name already sits in your own portfolio.
Third-party consensus shown for context. It never enters Moneyta sentiment. When the two diverge, the debate above is where the why lives.
What this was built from
Every figure on this page traces to one of these. The desk reads only what is listed here (no outside knowledge, no browsing), and each card shows who read it and what it contributed to the score.
10 filings· 2 cited
SEC XBRL filings
Quarterly figures as filed with the SEC, read straight from EDGAR's structured data, not retyped or estimated.
Read by Mercer+0.7 to the score
5 documents· 3 cited
SEC filing documents
The filings themselves, including the year-over-year comparison of Item 1A risk factors.
Read by Oakes−0.8 to the score
1 signal set
Moneyta signal set
Computed from our own end-of-day price history and ranked against the whole research universe. No AI involved.
Read by Nash+0.0 to the score
3 holdings records· 1 cited
Fund holdings
Which funds hold this name and at what weight, plus insider Form 4 filings.
Read by Ellis+0.2 to the score
8 headlines· 2 cited
News coverage
Recent headlines about this company, rating chatter excluded and nothing published after the report date.
Read by Yatesnothing survived
1 filing
Insider filings
Parsed Forms 3/4/5 from EDGAR: named insiders, share counts, prices, and 10b5-1 plan state, with stated and inferred flags kept apart.
Read by Talbot+0.5 to the score
1 computation
Valuation inputs
TTM cash-flow figures from the company's own XBRL filings, priced with the stored closing price. Implied growth and multiples only; no fair-value dollar figure reaches the desk, by design.
Read by Archercontext only
1 record· 0 cited
Company profile
Sector, industry and company details.
1 record· 0 cited
Analyst consensus
Third-party consensus, shown for context only; it never enters Moneyta sentiment.
Read means we pulled and handed it to an analyst; cited means a claim on this page points at it. Reading twelve quarters to state one trend is normal; the gap is shown rather than hidden.
Written by AI, checked against sources
The analysts, the bull–bear debate and the editor's note are AI agents reading only the evidence listed on this page. They can misread a filing or a headline, which is why every claim cites a source you can open and check yourself. The sentiment score is arithmetic over the claims that survived the debate, not a language model's opinion.
Educational analysis of published data. Moneyta does not give investment advice or make recommendations. Past patterns do not indicate future results.
The full terminal on EPAM Gold
Who holds it, who's buying, what the Street thinks: live behind the lock, updated as filings land.
Institutional holders
Net institutional flow, Q/Q
Largest holder position
Insider buys, 90 days
Clustered insider value
Street target range
The real figures are for members. Educational analysis, not advice.
Get this for the names you actually hold
Every name in your portfolio, researched the same way, plus the one thing no sample can show: how each one sits inside what you already own.
Educational analysis of published data. Moneyta does not give investment advice or make recommendations.