OKLO vs SMR: Why the $495M Filing Clue Matters More Than NRC Approval
The conventional wisdom says NuScale (SMR) is safer because it has NRC approval. But filing data reveals SMR paid $495M—$6.9M per reactor—to trigger a non-binding customer agreement. OKLO has regulatory uncertainty but uncommitted cash.
OKLO vs SMR: Why the $495M Filing Clue Matters More Than NRC Approval
Last Updated: January 2, 2026 | Sources: OKLO 10-Q, SMR 10-Q
NuScale (SMR) is the only NRC-approved SMR. That's the bull case. But Q3 2025 filings reveal SMR paid $495M to trigger a non-binding customer agreement—$6.9M per reactor paid to the customer.
OKLO has regulatory uncertainty but $1.18B in uncommitted cash and no customer acquisition payments.
Bottom Line: SMR is an execution bet. OKLO is a regulatory call option. Neither has proven unit economics.
Key Findings:
- SMR's $495M "Milestone Contribution" reveals customer acquisition costs—the seller is paying the buyer
- NRC approval hasn't solved SMR's commercialization problem: one paying customer, 100% concentration
- OKLO's cash runway is more secure despite no regulatory approval
- Both are speculative; size at 1-2% max
- SMR: Revenue $8.2M (+1,635% YoY); Operating loss $538M (includes $495M one-time); 100% customer concentration
- OKLO: Revenue $0; Operating cash burn $48.7M (9mo); Cash $1,184M; No material commitments
- Risk Scores: Both 4/10 (appropriate for pre-revenue)
The $495M Clue: Who Pays Whom?
In Q3 2025, NuScale recorded a $495 million expense. This wasn't a loss from operations or an R&D investment. It was a payment to a customer.
The expense was triggered when ENTRA1—a global SMR deployment platform partially backed by NuScale—signed a non-binding agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for 72 NuScale Power Modules (NPMs).
From the SMR 10-Q:
"As of September 30, 2025, the criteria for triggering Milestone Contribution 1 has been achieved for 72 NPMs, as ENTRA1 has entered into a non-binding agreement regarding NPMs with the Tennessee Valley Authority."
The math: $495M ÷ 72 NPMs = $6.9M per reactor paid to the customer.
This inverts the typical capital equipment business model. NuScale isn't selling reactors—it's subsidizing adoption. The $495M is customer acquisition cost, not revenue.
OKLO's Different Approach
OKLO has its own large non-binding deal: 12 GW with Switch. But there's no filing evidence of OKLO paying Switch to sign the agreement. OKLO's business model is to own and operate powerhouses, selling power via PPAs. The capital intensity shifts from customer to company, but cash outflows are tied to asset construction, not customer bribes.
Takeaway: SMR's commercialization requires massive upfront cash outflows before any revenue. OKLO's model may avoid this trap—but neither has proven unit economics.
The NRC Moat That Wasn't
NuScale is the only SMR design with NRC approval. In January 2023, the NRC certified NuScale's design—a regulatory milestone no competitor has achieved.
The thesis was simple: NRC approval = competitive moat = customer orders.
18 months later, here's the reality:
| Metric | Result |
|---|---|
| Paying customers | 1 (RoPower) |
| Customer concentration | 100% |
| Q3 2025 Revenue | $8.2M |
| Q3 2025 Operating Loss | $538M |
| Operating Margin | -6,533% |
| Workforce change (2024) | -28% (154 employees) |
The regulatory moat exists. Commercial traction does not.
OKLO's Regulatory Path
OKLO completed a Phase I pre-application readiness assessment with the NRC in July 2025. From the OKLO 10-Q:
"The NRC identified no significant gaps that would hinder acceptance of the application, reinforcing the strength of our technical and regulatory preparation."
OKLO's Combined License application is in progress. The risk is binary: approval enables commercialization; rejection is existential. But OKLO hasn't cut 28% of its workforce or paid customers to sign non-binding LOIs.
Takeaway: Regulatory approval is necessary but not sufficient. Execution risk appears higher at SMR despite having cleared the regulatory hurdle.
Cash Runway: Committed vs. Uncommitted
A surface comparison suggests similar financial positions:
| Metric | OKLO | SMR |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + Investments | $1,184M | $692M |
| Operating Cash Burn (9mo) | $48.7M | ~$100M (adj.) |
| Implied Runway | 24+ quarters | ~7 quarters |
But the surface numbers miss a critical distinction.
SMR's Committed Capital
SMR's $538M operating loss included the $495M one-time Milestone Contribution. The adjusted quarterly burn rate is approximately $43M.
However, SMR has committed future payments. Milestone Contribution 2 is pending. The company has also entered into Long Lead Materials (LLM) purchase commitments and sales/marketing obligations that extend through 2026.
From the hidden liabilities analysis:
"The company has significant PMA contributions payable in 2025 and 2026 related to an agreement with ENTRA1."
OKLO's Uncommitted Cash
OKLO's $1,184M in cash has no similar commitments. The company states it has sufficient runway for "the one-year period following the issuance date"—but that's a regulatory-required minimum disclosure, not a constraint.
No customer acquisition payments. No milestone contribution obligations. No material purchase commitments disclosed.
Takeaway: OKLO's runway is more secure. SMR's cash position is partially pre-committed to future customer payments.
Business Model Trade-offs
These companies aren't just building different reactor technologies—they're pursuing fundamentally different business models.
OKLO: Own/Operate (PPA Model)
OKLO plans to own and operate its Aurora powerhouses, selling electricity to customers via Power Purchase Agreements.
From the OKLO 10-Q:
"Our powerhouses could be profitable from the first year of operation due to our anticipated favorable unit economics."
Pros: Recurring revenue, predictable cash flows, retained asset value Cons: Higher capital intensity, construction risk, longer path to cash generation
SMR (NuScale): Manufacture/Sell (Equipment Model)
NuScale manufactures NPMs and sells (or licenses) them to customers who build and operate plants.
Pros: Asset-light once manufacturing scales, revenue per unit sold Cons: Requires customer capex decisions, demonstrated willingness to pay customers to adopt
Neither model is proven. OKLO has never built a commercial reactor. SMR has never delivered an NPM to a non-related customer.
Risk Profile Comparison
| Risk Category | OKLO | SMR |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | HIGH (no NRC approval) | LOW (only approved SMR) |
| Execution | MEDIUM (early stage) | HIGH ($495M payments, 28% layoffs) |
| Technology | HIGH (fast reactor, HALEU supply) | LOW (light-water, proven design) |
| Customer | MEDIUM (non-binding deals) | HIGH (100% concentration) |
| Balance Sheet | STRONG (no debt, no commitments) | MEDIUM (committed payments) |
SMR's paradox: Lower regulatory and technology risk, but higher execution and customer risk. The "safe" bet has material operational warning signs.
OKLO's paradox: Higher regulatory and technology risk, but cleaner execution signals. The "risky" bet has a stronger balance sheet.
Investment Framework
Neither company belongs in a core portfolio. Both are speculative.
OKLO: Regulatory Call Option
The binary outcome is NRC approval. If approved, the upside is substantial—OKLO has a differentiated business model, customer interest (Switch, DOE, Air Force), and no debt. If rejected, the stock is worthless.
Position sizing: 1-2% maximum. This is call option sizing.
SMR: Execution Bet
The regulatory hurdle is cleared. Now NuScale must:
- Convert non-binding LOIs to binding contracts
- Deliver NPMs on time and budget
- Reduce customer acquisition costs from $6.9M per reactor
- Generate positive gross margins
The 28% workforce reduction and $495M customer payment suggest this path is harder than the market assumed.
Position sizing: 1-2% maximum. The regulatory moat didn't create a business moat.
Neither for Core Nuclear Exposure
For quality nuclear exposure, Cameco (CCJ) offers proven margin expansion (+530bps in 2025), no debt, and diversified customer relationships. See our LEU vs CCJ analysis for fuel supply chain comparison.
Honest Caveats
-
Both companies are pre-revenue — Traditional financial metrics (P/E, ROIC) don't apply. This is technology venture investing.
-
SMR's $495M is one-time — Don't extrapolate to ongoing expenses. But the willingness to pay customers to adopt signals unit economics challenges.
-
OKLO's Switch deal is non-binding — Same uncertainty as SMR's TVA deal. Non-binding means either party can walk away.
-
Neither has proven unit economics — All projections about "profitable from year one" or "cost reductions" are theoretical.
-
Sector could rally on policy news — Nuclear is politically sensitive. A supportive executive order or DOE announcement could move both stocks regardless of fundamentals.
Related Research
Nuclear Power for AI:
- Nuclear Utility Risk Screen: VST, CEG, TLN — Existing nuclear operators with AI data center deals
- LEU vs CCJ: Uranium Supply Chain — HALEU monopoly vs mining scale
- Rocket Lab (RKLB) Analysis: Neutron Valuation 2026 — Space infrastructure with nuclear applications
AI Infrastructure:
- AI Infrastructure Hub — Complete research library
Analysis based on OKLO 10-Q (Accession: 0001628280-25-051349, filed November 12, 2025) and SMR 10-Q (Accession: 0001822966-25-000175, filed November 6, 2025). All data from SEC EDGAR filings.
MetricDuck Research
SEC filing analysis and quantitative equity research