Title

Presentation

Operator: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the BioLife Solutions Q1 2026 Shareholder and Analyst Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Troy Wichterman, Chief Financial Officer of BioLife Solutions.

Troy Wichterman: Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining the BioLife Solutions 2026 First Quarter Earnings Conference Call. On the call with me today is Roderick de Greef, CEO and Chairman of the Board. We will cover business highlights and financial performance for the quarter and reiterate our 2026 financial guidance. Earlier today, we issued a press release announcing our financial results and operational highlights for the first quarter of 2026, which is available at biolifesolutions.com. As a reminder, during this call, we will make forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that can be found in our SEC filings. These statements speak only as of the date given, and we undertake no obligation to update them.

We will also speak to non-GAAP or adjusted results. Reconciliations of GAAP to non-GAAP or adjusted financial metrics are included in the press release we issued this afternoon. Now I’d like to turn the call over to Roderick de Greef, Chairman and CEO of BioLife.

Roderick de Greef: Thanks, Troy. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us for BioLife’s First Quarter 2026 Conference Call. We’re off to a solid start to 2026 with first quarter revenue growth of 25% and adjusted EBITDA up approximately 15% versus the prior year. Performance in the quarter was driven by continued strength across our broader product portfolio, led by our biopreservation media or BPM franchise. We entered 2026 with a simplified business and heightened focus on high-margin recurring revenue, and our results this quarter demonstrate the operating leverage in our model as a result. At the same time, we’re seeing continued momentum across the CGT landscape, driven by expansion into larger indications, encouraging data readouts, strategic M&A and an improving funding environment, all of which we believe will support long-term growth across our end markets and underpins sustained value creation for BioLife shareholders.

Turning to the quarter’s results. Total revenue reached $27.5 million, increasing 25% year-over-year and adjusted EBITDA of $6.2 million or 22% of revenue, up roughly 15% from the prior year. BPM remained the primary driver of revenue growth with our other cell processing tools also contributing to overall growth. BPM represents over 85% of total revenue and continues to benefit from broad adoption across both commercial therapies and clinical pipelines where we maintain a dominant market share. Our top 20 BPM customers represented approximately 80% of BPM revenue and demand forecast from these accounts provide good visibility into our business. Channel mix remained consistent with over 60% of BPM revenue generated through direct sales with the balance through third-party distributors.

Roughly half of BPM revenue was generated from customers with approved commercial therapies, and this remains a key driver of growth and durability in our model. We highlight these metrics because they reflect the ongoing shift in our business toward later-stage programs and commercial products, which are more stable, less sensitive to funding dynamics and growing faster than the broader CGT market. Several of the therapies we support are already at or tracking toward blockbuster status with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion. As these therapies scale and expand into new geographies and additional potentially larger indications, we believe BioLife is well positioned to benefit from higher patient volumes and the recurring nature of these revenue streams.

Gross margin and adjusted EBITDA as a percent of revenue declined year-over-year due to the previously discussed bag yield dynamics. This remains a key operational priority, and we are making steady progress in close collaboration with our key customers to address it and are confident that this is temporary in nature. Stepping back, our market position continues to strengthen. At the end of the quarter, our BPM products were embedded in 17 approved therapies with visibility into an additional 9 unique approvals, expanded indications and geographic expansions over the next 12 months. Across the broader pipeline, we estimate our solutions are utilized in more than 250 commercially sponsored CGT clinical trials in the U.S., exceeding a 70% market share with an even higher share in later-stage Phase III programs.

Independent third-party analysis of U.S. commercially sponsored trials where our biopreservation media is not used, no other commercial alternatives were identified, suggesting that these trials are relying on internal homebrew formulations. Given our leading share among late-stage programs, we expect this pipeline will convert into future commercial revenue as therapies advance through the approval process, reinforcing our position as a critical spectrum component of the cell therapy workflow. Building on this foundation, our team is focused on expanding BioLife’s role within the CGT workflow beyond biopreservation media. Our CellSeal Vials and hPL product lines are already utilized in 4 approved therapies and over 35 clinical programs, and that number continues to grow.

This expanding footprint is supporting our cross-selling efforts with existing BPM-only customers evaluating additional components of our portfolio. Given the size of these organizations and the rigor of their validation processes, adoption cycles tend to be longer, reflecting a higher bar for change while reinforcing the stickiness of these relationships. That said, we’re seeing encouraging early traction and each additional BioLife product that’s integrated into a therapy has the potential to increase our revenue per dose by 2 to 3x relative to BPM alone. While still early, this represents a meaningful opportunity to enhance both growth and the overall financial profile of the business. From a capital allocation standpoint, we remain focused on the highest return opportunities to support long-term growth, both organically and through disciplined strategic initiatives.

Alongside our cross-selling efforts, we are regularly evaluating adjacent areas that build on our core scientific and commercial strengths. This includes selective acquisitions, minority investments and strategic partnerships that broaden our platform and increase our participation across the CGT ecosystem. This is enabled by our balance sheet, which gives us the flexibility to pursue attractive opportunities with discipline while maintaining a high bar for financial profile and strategic fit. Turning to our 2026 outlook. We are affirming the guidance we introduced on our last call. We expect revenue of $112.5 million to $115 million for the year, representing growth of 17% to 20%. As in prior years, our guidance reflects the visibility we have today based on demand forecast from our key customers.

We also expect continued operating and adjusted EBITDA margin expansion and anticipate generating full year GAAP net income for the first time in many years. Before handing it over, I’ll briefly highlight a few favorable developments we’re seeing across the cell therapy landscape. Field is diversifying beyond traditional oncology applications with increasing activity in large autoimmune indications. We’re also seeing encouraging data emerging in allogeneic cell therapies that have the potential to unlock multibillion-dollar market opportunities as well as renewed interest in established autologous approaches such as CAR-T and TILs, expanding the market from its base in liquid tumors into solid tumor indications. At the same time, we’re seeing meaningful strategic activity, including the recent nearly $8 billion acquisition of Arcellx by Gilead as well as continued investment in next-generation manufacturing capacity and automation to support scale.

As these therapies evolve and care settings shift, whether into outpatient and community settings or toward off-the-shelf approaches, this is expected to support sustained demand for robust, high-quality and trusted cell processing tools, biopreservation media and packaging solutions, areas where BioLife is well positioned. Taken together, these dynamics reinforce our confidence in the long-term trajectory of the field and the attractiveness of the CGT end market. BioLife has exposure across these areas and is uniquely positioned to benefit as these trends translate into durable demand. With that, I’ll hand the call over to Troy to provide an overview of our first quarter financial results. Troy?

Troy Wichterman: Thank you, Rod. We reported Q1 revenue of $27.5 million, representing an increase of 25% year-over-year. The year-over-year increase was primarily related to increased sales of our biopreservation media products, driven by strong demand from customers with commercially approved therapies as well as strong revenue growth from the balance of our product portfolio. GAAP gross margin for Q1 2026 was 64% compared with 67% in Q1 2025. Adjusted gross margin for the first quarter was 64% compared with 68% in the prior year. The decrease in adjusted gross margin percentage compared with the prior year can primarily be attributed to a product mix shift towards bags, which carry lower gross margins than bottles as well as a previously discussed impact from manufacturing yields.

We view the yield impact as transitory and a key operational priority throughout 2026. And as it is resolved, we expect a corresponding expansion in gross margin. GAAP operating expenses for Q1 2026 were $17.5 million versus $15.3 million in Q1 2025. The increase compared to the prior year can be attributed to a $1.2 million increase in R&D, primarily related to our PanTHERA acquisition in April 2025 and the opening of our Center of Excellence. In addition, we had a $0.9 million expense increase in stock-based comp acceleration related to severance, partially offset by a reduction of $0.8 million in acquisition costs. Adjusted operating expenses for Q1 2026 totaled $16.8 million compared with $13.8 million in the prior year. GAAP operating income for Q1 2026 was $27,000 versus an operating loss of $0.5 million in the prior year.

The improvement was primarily due to increased revenue compared to the prior year and lower acquisition costs, partially offset by higher stock comp related to severance. Our adjusted operating income for the first quarter of 2026 was $1 million compared with $1.2 million in Q1 2025. Our GAAP net income was $1.2 million or $0.02 per share in Q1 compared to $0.3 million or $0.01 per share in the prior year. The increase in net income was primarily due to increased revenues compared to the prior year. Adjusted EBITDA for the first quarter of 2026 was $6.2 million or 22% of revenue compared with $5.4 million or 24% of revenue in the prior year. The primary driver of the change as a percentage of revenue in the current quarter was due to the impact of bag yields on our gross margin percentage as discussed earlier.

Turning to our balance sheet. Our cash and marketable securities balance reported as of March 31, 2026, was $111.5 million compared with $120.2 million as of December 31, 2025. Taking into consideration our adjusted EBITDA of $6.2 million in Q1, cash usage was primarily driven by tax obligations for share withholdings vested in Q1 of $5.6 million, debt principal payments of $2.5 million and unfavorable working capital of $6.9 million, which includes an increase in AR of $5.1 million, primarily related to timing. The entirety of our $2.5 million SVB debt balance is considered short term. Our final payment on the SVB debt balance is due in June 2026. We will pay a $1.2 million loan maturity balloon payment due at the time of maturity. Turning to our 2026 financial guidance.

We are reiterating our 2026 guidance disclosed during our fourth quarter earnings call. Total revenue is expected to be $112.5 million to $115 million, reflecting overall growth of 17% to 20%. The increase is primarily due to expected demand from our BPM customers with commercially approved therapies as well as increased demand for our other tools. We expect GAAP and adjusted gross margin for the full year to be in the mid-60s. We expect gross margins to benefit from favorable pricing, partially offset by product mix and the previously discussed impact from bag yields. We expect to achieve full year positive GAAP net income and expansion of adjusted EBITDA margin in 2026 compared to 2025. Finally, in terms of our share count, as of April 30, we had 48.9 million shares issued and outstanding and 50.3 million shares on a fully diluted basis.

Now I’ll turn the call back to the operator to open up for questions.

Receive real-time insider trading and news alerts

Operator: [Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from Matt Stanton from Jefferies.

Matthew Stanton: Maybe on the topic of the bags, could you just clarify, are you saying that the bags have lower margins than bottles, all else equal and that there’s also the scrap issue tied to the bag, so kind of two issues on the bag in terms of mix? And then I would love to just get an update on the scrap side of the bag. I think before you talked about kind of a 90-day notice period. Maybe just help us in terms of getting that back to normal as we think about kind of the 22% adjusted EBITDA margins in 1Q and the walk up the rest of the year to kind of get to that year-over-year expansion that you reiterated again today.

Roderick de Greef: Yes, Matt, let me take the second part of your question, and I’ll have Troy deal with the first part. So with respect to where we are with our customers in order to solve this problem, we have been working with them over the last 60 days to provide them with several different alternatives to the existing bags, which are causing the problems. So we are at a point now where that customer notification will be going out shortly. There’s a 90-day period for them to select effectively which option they’d like to utilize. And then we have to burn through the remaining bag inventory that we have. So we’re on track for the same sort of timing as we had laid out in the last phone call we had. And we would expect to be able to see some flow-through of enhanced margin either Q4 or Q1 of ’27, depending on how quickly we burn through the existing bag inventory. I’ll let Troy answer the rest.

Troy Wichterman: Yes. And Matt, on your question on bags versus bottles on gross margin. So as a percentage of revenue, bags do have a lower gross margin than bottles by quite a bit at this point in time because of that yield issue we’ve been talking about.

Matthew Stanton: Okay. And then so once the yield issue is rectified, are the margins closer to the same as previous is that right?

Troy Wichterman: Closer, correct.

Matthew Stanton: Okay. Okay. And then maybe, Rod, you talked about a little bit just outside of biopreservation media, you talked a little bit about cross-selling there. I would love just some more color on the new product front. Obviously, you have the Cryo case. I think you’ve talked about maybe some other things coming out of the pipeline. You have PanTHERA here, would love kind of an update on that. Just anything as we think about the back half of ’26 and ’27 on the new product front and other things coming out besides biopreservation media.

Roderick de Greef: Sure. You bet. With respect to the PanTHERA product, we’re still on track for a Q4 launch of that. We’ve identified what the value proposition will be in addition to identifying the final molecule that we’ll be going with. So that looks good. With respect to cross-selling the other products, that is a longer-term effort. It continues to move forward with respect to increased number of validations, et cetera. And I think that at the end of the day, when I look at the revenue growth, albeit from a smaller base, those other tools are growing at a faster rate actually than the biopreservation media is. So we’re pleased with the momentum. Obviously, we’d like things to go faster, but there’s a certain amount of inertia with respect to the validation process within these large companies.

Operator: The next question comes from Brendan Smith from TD Cowen.

Brendan Smith: Congrats on the quarter. Maybe just a quick one from us on a bit more sector level. I guess as you kind of look at state of biotech funding and kind of the broader strength you’re seeing, are you potentially expecting any inflection orders over the coming months? I guess, just given that we’re now kind of approaching almost 6 months of pretty solid funding recovery there. I guess, really, how big of a driver is that for BioLife realistically? And is this something that could jump up in Q3 or Q4? Or just kind of your view on the funnel looking like a more gradual ramp? Just kind of trying to understand cadence for guidance.

Roderick de Greef: Yes. Thanks, Brendan. I think that as we’ve talked in the past, the biotech funding does not really impact us. To the extent that it does, it impacts us at very early-stage customers. There’s a few exceptions to that. But in general, it affects earlier-stage customers that buy a very small amount of product through distributors from us, right? So the overall impact is not that meaningful. The bulk of the revenue, certainly the revenue growth is coming from well-capitalized firms. And when I look at the Phase III customers that we have that should be gaining approval over the next sort of 12 to 24 months, those are, by and large, also well capitalized. On top of that, though, to the extent there is an impact, I read the other day where overall biotech financings for ’25 were about $11.1 billion. So it seems to me that, that issue has stabilized and now should not be a headwind at any level for us going forward.

Operator: The next question comes from Paul Knight from KeyBanc.

Paul Knight: Rod, we were at the BioLife booth at INTERPHEX, the CryoCase won one of the Best In Show awards. How is that going commercially?

Roderick de Greef: Yes. We were pleased to receive the award for sure, Paul. I think it’s good recognition that it truly was sort of a unique product that we put out. So again, we have well over 3 dozen validations going on, and I think that there’s definite interest. But again, whenever you’re dealing with something that changes in the manufacturing process, particularly of a final drug product, but even in late stage, it’s a decision by committee, right? A lot of people are involved, and it takes a lot of time. But we’re seeing some bright spots and are looking forward to being able to see some traction certainly towards the second half of the year, hopefully, with the type of announcement of a customer that people would recognize.

Paul Knight: And then the other question, Rod, you mentioned earlier, autologous has kind of been the core of the market. But where are we with allogeneic cell therapy based on what customers are telling you?

Roderick de Greef: Yes. I think we’re still a couple of years out, but Allogene has published some decent data. I think they did a raise. So from a financial perspective, they’re in a much more solid position. And I think there, although the overall BPM volumes per patient might be a little bit lower, the opportunity to address much larger patient populations is, in our estimation, going to far outweigh the reduced amount of volume per patient. But again, I think it’s a good 2-plus years away from really having a revenue impact on BioLife.

Paul Knight: And then lastly, you mentioned GAAP net income. Is that like targeting 4Q, Rod, or Troy?

Roderick de Greef: No, it’s for the full year per quarter, Paul.

Operator: The next question comes from Mac Etoch from Stephens.

Steven Etoch: Maybe following up on Paul’s question. I think the share of homebrew has been pretty stable over the last couple of years, particularly in late-stage trials. As you think about cell and gene therapy expanding into these larger indications and the FDA focusing on more standardized platforms, do you see an opportunity to kind of capture more of that share moving forward?

Roderick de Greef: Yes, I think so. As we’re taking a cut of this data, Matt, on every 6-month basis. We go back and review the results of all the clinical trial work that has been done and refresh it. And the numbers are actually going up in our favor. So I think that at the end of the day, it’s going to be very few folks who use a homebrew with a commercial product. As we’ve mentioned, we’re in 900-plus trials worldwide, but the ones that really matter are the 250-plus that we’re in that are commercially sponsored that are looking to achieve a commercial therapy. And I think that it’s going to be increasingly difficult to justify whether it’s from a cost perspective, a manufacturing process perspective, a logistics perspective, the FDA to use something other than the gold standard.

Operator: The next question comes from Matt Hewitt from Craig-Hallum.

Tollef Kohrman: This is Tollef Kohrman on for Matt Hewitt. Is there anything specific you want to call out on that increase in R&D expense?

Roderick de Greef: Yes. I think it is directly related to bringing on the Center of Excellence, which provides us with the ability to do some serious scientific work. We have 4 or 5 scientists working at the center, all PhDs. We’ve never had that before in terms of a team of scientists that can actually do the R part in addition to the D part of R&D. So we’re pretty pleased with that. So there’s a cost associated with that as well as the cost of increasing the accelerating projects that we have internally, including the RCC, which will ultimately be the answer to the bag issue that we have. So that’s a rigid container designed to carry our product from our factory to our customers in a rigid container that can be used in a closed system. So that’s a product that we’re definitely making an investment in as well as the consumable line associated with the CT-5. So that’s where the money is going. It’s really internal product development.

Operator: The next question comes from Thomas Flaten from Lake Street Capital Markets.

Thomas Flaten: Rod, you mentioned in your prepared comments that commercial BPM customers were about half the revenue. And I think on the last call, you said you could get that maybe up to 55%. Any update on that outlook? Or do you think 55% is still realistic? Or do you think you can push it beyond that?

Roderick de Greef: I think in the near term, that’s about the right number. The rate of growth of that group of customers versus, say, distribution or noncommercial is so significantly different that it’s going to be a higher number in the outer years. But in this year, I think a target of 55% is pretty much where we’re going to settle out.

Operator: And our next question comes from Yi Chen from H.C. Wainwright.

Katherine Degen: This is Katie on for Yi. Thinking about some of the deals you announced on prior calls with Pluristyx and Qkine with those two coming together and that announcement on May 1, does that integration kind of give you any meaningful wins for biopreservation media demand? Are you kind of expecting any pull-through from that deal? How are you kind of thinking about that?

Roderick de Greef: are you speaking about the Qkine deal?

Katherine Degen: Yes.

Roderick de Greef: Yes. I think where the pull-through with our products comes into play is combining our CellSeal product line as a primary container for Qkine cytokine line. That’s where we’re going to see some incremental revenue from our products. The other way we’ll generate revenue is obviously through the sale of their cytokines to our customer base.

Katherine Degen: Yes. I guess my question is, are you expecting any synergy now that Pluristyx and Qkine have an agreement together?

Roderick de Greef: You mean the Pluristyx and Qkine agreement?

Katherine Degen: Yes, right.

Roderick de Greef: No, no. I think — yes, that’s specific to Qkine providing some products that have — that are relevant to their Organoid kit. So that really is outside of anything to do with BioLife per se.

Katherine Degen: Okay. So you don’t think they’ll pull through any customer base from that?

Roderick de Greef: Not that will directly impact our revenue in any way, no.

Operator: This concludes our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Rod de Greef for any closing remarks.

Roderick de Greef: Thank you, Jason. In closing, 2026 is off to a strong start with solid top line growth. We remain focused on operational execution, including supporting our core BPM customers, expanding adoption across our broader portfolio and managing operations efficiently across our organization. We believe our position as a leading supplier of bioproduction products, together with exposure across the attractive and growing CGT end market leaves us well positioned for durable growth and long-term value creation. Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to seeing some of you at upcoming investor conferences.

Operator: The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today’s presentation. You may now disconnect.

Receive real-time insider trading and news alerts