Bruker Corporation (BRKR) Q2 2026 Earnings Report, Transcript and Summary

Good day, and welcome to the Bruker Corporation Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions]. Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to hand the call over to Joe Kostka, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone to Bruker Corporation's Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. My name is Joe Kostka, and I am the Director of Bruker Investor Relations. Joining me on today's call are our President and CEO, Frank Laukien; and our EVP and CFO, Gerald Herman. In addition to the earnings release we issued earlier today, during today's conference call, we will be referencing a slide presentation that can be downloaded from the Events and Presentations section of Bruker's Investor Relations website. During today's call, we will be highlighting non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations of our non-GAAP to GAAP financial measures are included in our earnings release and are posted on our website at ir.bruker.com. Before we begin, I would like to reference Bruker's safe harbor statement, which is shown on Slide 2 of the presentation. During this conference call, we will or may make forward-looking statements regarding future events and the financial and operational performance of the company that involve risks and uncertainties, including those related to our recent acquisitions, geopolitical risks, wars or blockades, market demand, tariffs, currency exchange rates, competitive dynamics or supply chains. The company's actual results may differ materially from such statements. Factors that might cause such differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed in today's earnings release and in our Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2025, as updated by our other SEC filings, which are available on our website and on the SEC's website. Also, please note that the following information is based on current business conditions and on our outlook as of today, August 4, 2026. We do not intend to update our forward-looking statements based on new information, future events or for other reasons, except as may be required by law, prior to the release of our third quarter 2026 financial results expected in early November 2026. You should not rely on these forward-looking statements as necessarily representing our views or outlook as of any date after today. We will begin today's call with Frank providing an overview of our business progress. Gerald will then cover the financials for the second quarter of 2026 in more detail and comment on our full year 2026 financial outlook. Now I'd like to turn the call over to Bruker's CEO, Frank Laukien.

Thanks, Joe. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us on today's second quarter 2026 earnings call. We are pleased that Bruker has returned to organic revenue growth in the second quarter and that our focus on cost reductions and profitability improvements resulted in solid margin expansion and non-GAAP EPS growth. Demand for our differentiated products and solutions improved further as our Scientific Instruments segment achieved 10% organic bookings growth year-over-year, a fourth consecutive quarter with a Scientific Instruments book-to-bill ratio above 1.0. Organic bookings in biopharma grew more than 20% in the second quarter, driven by demand for our NMR, x-ray and mass spectrometry solutions. In our academic and medical -- academic medical research business, bookings in Europe and China were up strongly. However, U.S. academic orders still remained weak in Q2. We saw notable Q2 order strength in our deep tech semiconductor tools and energy research technologies with both at over 50% organic order growth year-over-year. In semicon metrology, we sell robust and innovative metrology equipment for chip manufacturers with significant demand increases for high-bandwidth memory and advanced packaging driven by AI scaling. In energy research, we provide unique tools and modules for Fusion energy development and high-energy physics research. These proprietary deep tech capabilities, which also include our Security Detection systems are valuable to have in the portfolio as life science research demand recovers gradually. These deep tech tools tend to have longer delivery times, in some cases, of 9 to 24 months, determined by facility readiness, for example, for a new logic or memory chip wafer fabs or for large-scale fusion development projects. As a result, some of our strong deep tech bookings will benefit our Q4 and then 2027 and even the outer years. We are continuing to take costs out to drive margin expansion and double-digit EPS growth this year and also again in 2027. We have made good progress in the second quarter, realizing more cumulative cost reductions and we are well on track for our stated goal of delivering $140 million of annualized cost savings in 2026. I would like to thank our teams for their very important efforts in this area. Effective as of July 1 of this year, Bruker has adopted a new operating structure that combines our BioSpin, Daltonics and Optics division into a new Bruker Biosystems Group led by Group President, Juergen Srega. The newly merged Biosystems group addresses the growing need for scientific integration in the post-genomic era, which combines complementary life science research workflows into more comprehensive disease biology insights. Across post-genomic drug discovery, multiomics and applied markets, our customers connect structural, molecular and cellular information to understand complex systems biology or advanced materials research. The Biosystems Group brings together NMR, mass spectrometry, FTIR, Raman, preclinical automation software and applications expertise in any of these areas for connected workflows from research to quality control. Examples include metabolomics, RNA characterization or protein analysis, where NMR and mass spectrometry provide important complementary insights or as another example, in battery research, development and battery life cycle QC, where NMR and FTIR characterize electrolytes, electrodes and chemistry. In addition, Bruker Microbiology and Infection Diagnostics, which we sometimes abbreviate as BMID, previously a division within the CALID Group has now been established as a group under the leadership of Dr. Wolfgang Busch. This BMID group has a fast-growing microbiology and infection diagnostics portfolio from microbial identification, molecular diagnostics, hospital hygiene to emerging antimicrobial resistance testing and next-generation sequencing for sepsis and reflex testing. This modified group structure aligns Bruker more closely with markets and our customers. By organizing around connected workflows, we strengthen group level agility and our ability to prioritize investments that deliver innovation with the most impact. Following these changes, Bruker now operates in 4 groups. Bruker Biosystems, Bruker Nano, BMID or Bruker Microbiology and Infection Diagnostics and Bruker Energy and Supercon Technologies, or BEST. This new structure is expected to drive an additional $20 million of cost reductions in fiscal year '27. All right. On to the quarter. Let's turn to Slide 4 now for the P&L performance of the second quarter. Our Q2 '26 reported revenues of $839 million increased 5.2% year-over-year with organic growth of 2.8% or 3.4% organic growth, excluding tariff refunds in the second quarter. The revenue contribution from M&A was 1.5% and constant exchange rate or CER growth was 4.3% and the 0.9% FX revenue tailwind was actually 50 bps lower than originally expected. BSI segment revenues were up 2.3% organically, while BEST achieved organic revenue growth of 8.9% net of intercompany eliminations. Our second quarter '26 non-GAAP gross and operating margins were 52.1% and 14.1%, respectively, both up significantly year-over-year, albeit in comparison to a weak second quarter '25 and including a net U.S. tariff refund benefit that Gerald will describe in a moment. Our second quarter '26 diluted non-GAAP EPS was $0.49, up 53% from $0.32 in the second quarter of '25. Moving to Slide 5. H1 '26 revenues increased by 3.9% to $1.66 billion. First half organic revenue was still a decline of 0.8%, consisting of a 1.4% organic decline in Scientific Instruments and 6.1% organic growth at BEST, net of intercompany eliminations. Our first half '26 non-GAAP gross margin, operating margin and EPS were all up year-over-year and their performance is summarized on Slide 5. Gerald will go into more detail on the drivers shortly. Please turn to Slide 6 and 7, where we highlight the first half '26 performance of our 3 Scientific Instruments groups and of BEST, all in constant currency and year-over-year basis. In the first half of '26, the BioSpin Group revenue was $393 million down mid-single digits percentage year-over-year. BioSpin saw strong revenue growth in hospital clinical and biopharma, offset by weakness in China aca/gov, food testing and automation. NMR preclinical and preclinical imaging had robust order growth, both up double digits in the first half year-over-year. For the first half of '26, CALID Group revenue of $627 million increased in the mid-single-digit percentage, driven by mass spectrometry, including the TOFWERK acquisition. CALID saw strength in biopharma, security detection and European aca/gov, partially offset by weaker revenues in the U.S. First half revenue growth in Molecular Diagnostics was solid, while microbiology was roughly flat. Please turn to Slide 7 now. First half 2026 Bruker Nano revenue was $507 million with a low single-digit percentage decline. Nano saw weakness in aca/gov and industrial markets, while weakness in U.S. aca/gov funding continued to impact spatial biology. This was largely offset by robust strength in semiconductor metrology due to AI-driven orders for memory and advanced packaging metrology tools. Finally, the first half of '26 BEST revenues were up 6%, net of intercompany eliminations with strong growth in the superconductor business and solid revenue growth at Research Instruments, or RI. In the first half, RI secured very strong multiyear orders for Fusion Energy and high-energy physics technologies, and I'll come back to that in a moment. So moving to Slide 8 and 9. On Slide 8, we highlight our semiconductor metrology nanotools, which are now clearly moving the needle for Bruker. I won't go through the technical details but invite you to read those at your convenience. The first half '26 organic order growth was greater than 30% and the first half '26 organic revenue growth was greater than 15%, obviously, somewhat lagging behind order growth. And this business is very profitable. It has about a 30% EBIT margin. Longer lead times in this business, which can be 9 to 24 months, can result in revenue lagging order growth by several quarters. If you go to Slide 9, we touch on our other deep tech areas, our Security Detection on the left and Energy Research on the right. And those 2 businesses also seeing considerable strength. The first half detection orders and revenue were both up approximately 20% year-over-year, whereas, as I just mentioned, our first half research instruments, our energy research, our orders were up well over 100% year-over-year. In general, for perspective, keep in mind that Bruker and our orders tend to lag -- our revenues tend to lag the order trends by a couple of quarters. And for these deep tech areas that I just mentioned, many of them will begin to help our revenue and P&L in Q4 of this year and then very much into '27 and into the outer years. So in summary, in the second quarter, we achieved solid orders in many life science end markets, and we achieved very strong order growth in our so-called deep tech tools. We made further meaningful progress on our cost actions, setting us up for continued margin expansion and EPS growth in fiscal year '26. And we are proactively taking additional cost out steps that are expected to add additional P&L benefits next year. So with that, let me turn the call over to our CFO, Gerald Herman, who will review Bruker's Q2 and fiscal year '26 outlook in more detail. Gerald?

Thank you, Frank, and thank you, everyone, for joining us today. I'm pleased to provide more detail on Bruker's second quarter and first half 2026 financial performance, starting on Slide 11. In the second quarter of 2026, our results came in at the low end of our expectations on the top line, but meaningfully ahead of expectations on margins and EPS. Our top line results in the second quarter of '26 were unfavorably impacted by U.S. tariff refunds and a stronger U.S. dollar, which translated into less tailwind on revenue in total, approximately 110 basis points. U.S. tariff refunds reduced our organic revenue growth from 3.4% to 2.8%, but strengthened our profitability in the quarter, adding around 200 basis points to the second quarter '26 operating margins year-over-year. Net U.S. tariffs contributed about $0.06 to EPS in the second quarter. Most importantly, we also saw the accumulating impact of our cost-saving actions accelerate in the quarter, together with favorable mix and volume. In the second quarter of '26, Bruker's reported revenue increased 5.2% to $838.5 million, reflecting a pivot to organic growth in the quarter of 2.8% or 3.4% year-over-year, excluding U.S. tariff refunds. Acquisitions contributed 1.5% to our top line, while foreign exchange was a 0.9% tailwind, resulting in constant exchange rate revenue growth of 4.3% year-over-year. Geographically and on a year-over-year organic basis, in the second quarter of '26, our Americas and European revenues both grew approximately 10%, while Asia Pacific revenue declined in the low double-digit percentage, including a low double-digit decline of revenue in China. For our EMEA region, revenue was down low single-digit percentage. BSI organic revenue grew 2.3% in the second quarter of '26 with low single-digit organic growth in CALID and Bruker NANO, partially offset by flat revenue performance in BioSpin. BSI systems revenue was roughly flat and BSI aftermarket revenues were up mid-single digits organically year-over-year. Our BSI segment order book performance was up organically a solid 10% year-over-year, driven by greater than 50% growth in semi and greater than 20% growth in biopharma, partially offset by declines in U.S. aca/gov and food safety. Second quarter '26 non-GAAP gross margin increased 350 basis points to 52.1%. Non-GAAP operating margin was 14.1%, up 510 basis points, driven by our cost-saving actions, positive net U.S. tariff impact and favorable volume mix, partially offset by foreign currency headwinds, as shown on the slide. On a non-GAAP basis, second quarter '26 diluted EPS was $0.49, up 53% rather from the $0.32 in the second quarter of '25. Our non-GAAP effective tax rate was 25% compared to 23.6% in the second quarter of '25. On a GAAP basis, we reported a diluted loss per share of $0.41 compared to GAAP EPS of $0.05 in the second quarter of '25. Our second quarter '26 GAAP results include a noncash goodwill impairment charges of $135 million related to our automation and spatial biology businesses, which continued to experience operating losses. Weighted average diluted shares outstanding in the second quarter of 2026 were 152.8 million, an increase of 1.1 million shares from the second quarter of 2025. Slide 12 shows Bruker's performance for the first half of 2026, which has similar drivers to the second quarter. Turning to Slide 13. In the second quarter of 2026, our operating cash flow improved $50 million year-over-year, driven by improved profitability and the timing of tax and vendor payments in the quarter. Free cash flow improved approximately $43 million on a year-over-year basis. On stronger EBITDA in the second quarter of 2026, our net leverage ratio is now 2.8x as of June 30, 2026. Turning now to Slide 15. Our fiscal year 2026 financial update -- outlook rather, has been updated for foreign currency and effective tax rates only. We now expect a foreign exchange tailwind to revenues of 0.5% rather than 1.5% previously, resulting in reported revenue of $3.54 billion to $3.57 billion and representing reported growth of 3% to 4% compared to fiscal year '25. Organic revenue growth of 1% to 2% year-over-year, which is unchanged and acquisitions are expected to contribute 1.5% to growth also unchanged. We continue to expect non-GAAP operating margin expansion of 250 to 300 basis points year-over-year, largely driven by our cost-saving actions. On the bottom line, we continue to expect non-GAAP EPS for fiscal year '26 in the range of $2.10 to $2.15 or non-GAAP EPS growth of 15% to 17% compared to fiscal year '25, all unchanged as lower headwinds from foreign exchange are broadly offset by higher -- our higher effective tax rate. Other guidance assumptions are listed on the slide. Our fiscal year 2026 ranges have been updated for foreign currency rates as of June 30, 2026. Now some color on the third quarter of '26. We expect approximately $20 million of previously planned third quarter revenue to shift into the fourth quarter, driven by semiconductor customer delivery requirements. This results in Q3 organic revenue to be roughly flat to up slightly year-over-year. On operating margins and EPS in the third quarter, we now expect a slight sequential decrease due to the $20 million semi revenue shift from the third to the fourth quarter and the $0.06 net U.S. tariff EPS benefit previously expected to come into the third quarter being pulled into the second quarter. On a positive note, for the fourth quarter of 2026, we now expect meaningful sequential and year-over-year increases in organic revenue growth, operating margin and EPS due to significantly higher volume and favorable mix in the fourth quarter. To wrap up, Q2 '26 was another solid bookings quarter for Bruker, giving us further confidence in a gradual market recovery in several key markets and geographies. Our cost-saving actions are well on track, positioning us well for significant margin and profitability improvement in fiscal year '26, and we're driving towards further significant margin improvement and double-digit EPS growth also in 2027. With that, I'd like to turn the call over back to Joe. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Gerald. We will now begin the Q&A portion of the call. Operator?

[Operator Instructions] And our first question will come from Puneet Souda of Leerink Partners.

First one is on the tariff refund treatment. Some of the peers are calling it as a pass-through with no net impact as these refunds are passed on to the customers. So I just wanted to clarify on the treatment. And what is embedded in the tariff refund in the second half and for the full year guide because you're reiterating it, but it does appear that if we account for the refund that it is a step down. So if you could just clarify those points.

Puneet, it's Gerald. So on -- with respect to the first question, with respect to the tariff refunds, as you can guess, right, some of those tariff elements were charged to individual customers, and that resulted in a contra revenue element, which is considered in our press release and the materials we provided. With respect to EPS, we've also indicated that, that generated roughly 200 basis points of margin expansion in the quarter for the second quarter. As far as the second half goes, we've already factored that or baked that into our earlier guide numbers. We had just actually assumed that it would be more likely recovered in the third and the fourth quarters, not in the second quarter. So we had a slightly earlier pull forward of that into the second quarter. But overall, that's already been baked into our original guidance model.

Yes, that's helpful. I'll follow up later. But just maybe one quick one on semi. You're pointing to 50% order growth there, correct me if I'm wrong. But in terms of -- I mean, the visibility into this and the timing of delivery, maybe, Frank, could you double-click? Obviously, this is an end market that is fairly actionable right now, just given the AI demand. What sort of sustainability that you're hearing from the customer end because obviously, these are somewhat separated from the leading AI companies that are driving that demand. So maybe just could you elaborate a bit on the timing of the installs and conversion into revenue?

Yes. Yes. No, this is -- the orders are remarkable for the first half and even more so in Q2. Of course, there will be some fluctuations. But if anything, it seems to be accelerating as one would expect probably. We think -- and from what we read about others that are more deeply in semiconductor lithography or metrology, we think this is very sustainable this year and next. And then I think the debate is whether it's sustainable at that pace in '28 and beyond. People just don't know yet. But I would think that the visibility of the sector for the next 6 quarters plus seems excellent. That's not necessarily our own data. That's the general what we read from the industry. It is correct that many of these orders as wonderful as they are, and they are absolutely fantastic. They usually have an even longer delivery times than an average NMR or mass spec. So that can easily be 3 to sometimes 6 to 8 quarters. Visibility is very good because those customers are very -- they're like almost like clockwork, right? And they know when they need it for a new wafer fab and so on. So good visibility, but a little bit of a delayed gratification as more of -- some of that comes in, in Q4. As Gerald said, I think we'll have a very strong Q4. And then quite a bit of this goes into next year in terms of revenue and P&L help and even into '28. So great sustainability, great visibility, slightly longer lead times.

The next question comes from Michael Ryskin of Bank of America.

I want to just go back to 2Q performance briefly. I'm not sure if you want to talk ex tariffs or including tariffs, but overall organic was still a little bit lighter than we would have expected, especially I think in BSI, we were looking at more something like mid-single digits, especially given the comps. So you touched on academic and government, some other end markets. Again, a lot of that was expected and known. Is there anything unusual that happened in the quarter? Any pushouts or timing? Or just sort of how to think about 2Q relative to your prior assumptions?

Yes, Mike, thank you. So other than about the combined effect of the tariff refunds on revenue, which was, as you can see, was 60 bps. And there is an additional 50 bps effect from the currency tailwind actually being about 50 bps lower than had been expected because currency rates changed. That will become more pronounced in Q3. In Q3, that currency tailwind is on the revenues line is turning into a currency headwind. So in Q3, that takes out about -- it's not organic, but it takes out about EUR 15 million in revenue independent of the revenue shift that Gerald had explained. But back to Q2 and to your question, so that combined effect was about 110 bps of growth rate. Still on the light side on the revenues and on the organic revenues, -- and the #1 and #2 and #3 reasons our U.S. aca/gov. Our U.S. aca/gov revenues in Q2, which is the result of weak orders in the second half of last year, were down more than $10 million, actually more than $15 million still year-over-year. So as I said earlier, yes, the order -- that just takes a couple of quarters. What you're seeing there right now, that was the biggest weakness in revenue in the second quarter.

Okay. And if I could squeeze a follow-up, just, Gerald, maybe for you. The margin ramp through the second half of the year, I mean, obviously, there was the margins came in better in 2Q, but a lot of that was tariffs. If you could just walk us through the margin ramp in 3Q and the rest of the year. I know it's a big second point. So I would love to get some clarity on that.

Yes. In terms of the -- I mean, I mentioned in my prepared remarks on the third quarter, we are expecting some shift of revenue, particularly related to semi, as Frank was just noting. We got strong orders and some of the revenue because of customer timing is moving to the fourth quarter. In addition, we -- as I mentioned earlier, we did have a shift of what we expected from a tariff perspective of the third quarter into the second. So we have slight -- we think from a margin perspective, we think this is likely going to be somewhat down from what we initially expected. And on the revenue line, we think we're going to be sort of flat to slightly up from an organic perspective in the third quarter. And then, of course, we have a strong expected fourth quarter, significant growth there. There's a bunch of factors related to that. There's the pushout I just described in semi. There's -- we have a much stronger expectation around -- we have an ultra-high field coming into the fourth quarter. We have a number of mix improvements that are much better in that. We have a much higher volume. And as I think you know, we get to a much better story in terms of our overall EPS growth in the fourth quarter. It's shaping up to be a larger fourth quarter than we had expected, likely in around the $1 billion range. We've done this level of revenue growth in the past in the fourth quarter. So I think we just can execute to those levels. And that's our expectation at the moment.

The next question comes from Tycho Peterson of Jefferies.

Gerald, I'm going to actually pick up right there on margins. So you mentioned mix. I mean, is there some coming from the pricing actions you took last year coming out of backlog? And then how are you thinking about input costs here going forward? Also, are you backing off the 300 to 350 basis of core margin expansion? You had that in the deck last quarter. I didn't see you reiterate that. And then the incremental cost actions, how do we think about those flowing through into '27?

Okay. Well, there's a lot there. Let's start in the reverse order. On the cost actions, we're well on track. We're north of the $140 million. Frank mentioned the adoption of a new operating structure for Bruker, and that's going to contribute some more additional savings beyond the $140 million we are planning for in 2026 that will mostly hit in 2027, but still some -- so we're well on track with, I would say, a strong cost-saving actions even going forward beyond what we've already delivered. By the way, just from a cost savings perspective, we have delivered about $30 million in cost saving actions in the second quarter. So we're kind of right on track to where we expect it to be. With respect to the other questions, let's sort of take one at a time here. I think our cadence with respect to the third quarter has just now shifted a little bit further into the fourth. As I said earlier, we have a strong set up in the fourth quarter typically, even seasonally for Bruker, and it appears that we're going to have another one of those as we march into the fourth quarter of '26. The mix story, we are going to get some and continue to get some pricing benefit from adjustments we made in 2025 into '26, including in the fourth quarter. The biggest piece, I'd say, for the fourth quarter performance is really going to be about volume. With the scale that we will deliver in the fourth quarter, I think the volume piece is going to be much more important actually than just the mix elements. But we do expect better mix with respect to semi or ultra-high field and some of our other key businesses are going to perform more strongly in the fourth quarter based on what we see at this stage.

I think, Tycho, to your operating margin question, if you even look at our Slide 15, so if we haven't been clear enough, yes, that continues to be based -- our guidance continues to be based on an operating margin up 250 to 300 bps reported, including a 50 bps headwind and detailed a little bit on our Slide 15 on the outlook. So that is unchanged.

And then on the COGS side, Gerald, just inflationary memory chips, tungsten, et cetera?

Yes. That seems to be -- I mean, from an energy cost perspective, we've already baked that into the guide earlier. We're not seeing, at least at this stage, any significant pressure there at this point. We are having some supply chain challenges around componentry, mostly in the electronics side. But at this stage, we're pretty comfortable that, that's already been baked into our current guide.

Okay. And then, Frank, just in terms of the order book, I appreciate the color on semis. Just can you maybe talk about elsewhere, academic and gov, maybe where you're feeling a little bit better. You talked last quarter about some signs of improvement there.

Yes. It's -- the U.S. is still weak, as I said. And then -- so we're seeing the encouraging NIH outlays, but they did not yet translate into significant Q2 orders. We will observe what's happening in Q3. And of course, the Q3 budget flush, which seems to be underway, could for us also mean decent Q4 U.S. aca/gov bookings, but we'll see. In Q2 already, the aca/gov orders outside of the U.S., and particularly in the EU was up more than 10% -- and in China, the orders were up more than 20% for aca/gov in Q2. So remember, China was down on revenue, but then on orders, it was up more than 20% in aca/gov. So that's that 6 months delay that you usually see at Bruker. So yes, aca/gov, which I think that really supports the strength of our ASMS mass spec introduction of the new things we can do with our NMRs and of course, our -- even our other spatial biology and other tools or so, the portfolio and I think it's spot on. I think the innovation will have major impact if we only had a little bit more U.S. funding, but maybe that's coming. And where we have funding, it really -- it has a big impact. So that bodes well for aca/gov competitiveness and market shares gains except it's starting right now in Europe and in APAC and China, in particular.

The next question comes from Subbu Nambi of Guggenheim.

Then this will be at least the second year in a row where there is a timing dynamic challenge at the top line and seemingly a push out to Q4 or maybe even 2027. First, can you explain steps you're taking to improve visibility? And second, at Doug's bus tour in May, you indicated that 4% was a good starting point for 2027 revenue growth expectation. Given the timing dynamics, if this revenue gets pushed out to '27, would that be on top of that 4%?

So Subbu, very good questions. Yes, I mean, what are we doing to increase visibility, strong orders, right? We've had improving orders with better book-to-bill above 1 and pretty good order growth in the Scientific Instruments segment again in Q2 and now 4 orders in a row. That is helping us with visibility. The visibility sometimes, however, is -- and especially in these deep tech orders for Q4 and for next year. So yes, Q4 will -- should have a nice mid-single-digit organic growth rate. So it's a little bit of a roller coaster with Q2 growth and Q4 organic growth in Q1 and Q3 -- Q1 was down. Q3 will be flat to slightly up. But for the year, it's what we're what we've been aiming for and what we've -- what's in our guidance, namely the organic revenue growth of 1% to 2%, which is a transition year admittedly because it comes from a year of '25, where we were declining organically for all the factors that you know. Whether Q4 -- the Q4 growth rate is then whether it is indicative of our '27 growth rate is too early to say. So give us another -- give us a bit more time to see how bookings are, obviously, in Q3 and yes, also in Q4, and then we'll be able to comment on that. We generally believe, of course, in a further growth acceleration in organic growth acceleration in '27 compared to '26, but we cannot quantify that at this time.

And Gerald, I know you kind of explained this on the call on margins. You previously indicated that even with flat top line growth, you would be able to meet margin targets in Q3. You pointed to progress, including facility rationalization, timing and support. Some of it was just structural. What changed? Is it just this product mix? Or -- and do you get this back at some point over the subsequent 1 or 2 quarters?

I don't think anything changed. Gerald was just talking about sequential. What happened is that the -- we had assumed that we would get the tariff refunds maybe ratably over Q2, Q3, Q4. And remarkably, they came in rather quickly, mostly in June. So that's why our margins, that's why we pointed it out in Q2, our operating margins and our EPS had a greater benefit than we had expected from the tariff refunds coming in faster. We'll still have some in Q3, Q4, but to a lesser extent. So Q3 is still okay also on the margin side. But sequentially, Q2 in a good way, we overshot a little bit because some -- primarily because of these margin -- these tariff refunds that really came in the last half of June, quite honestly, faster than we had expected. We thought the government would slow walk them. They did not.

The next question comes from Luke Sergott of Barclays.

Just a quick one on the bookings. Just to clear up. So the bookings, were they down quarter-over-quarter? I'm just trying to get a level set of the overall dollar size that you guys had.

So you mean sequentially?

Sequentially.

Yes. Were they down sequentially?

No. No, they were up sequentially.

We're scrambling for the numbers, but they were up. Yes.

Okay. Great. And then as you think about the 4Q step-up here and in light of the strong bookings that you guys have had, how much of that 4Q step over the $1 billion, roughly about that number is already covered in your backlog?

So it's obviously going to be more than $1 billion, right? You do the math, $1.02 billion to $1.04 billion or something like that. And percentage of that -- a lot of that is in our backlog now. But of course, we also get -- we get some ongoing orders. I don't have a number right now, more than 50% for sure, but I don't have an exact number, probably 2/3. But again, sorry, I do not have a -- you've stumped us twice. We do not have exact numbers for both of your questions. We will, however, when we call you back because we just don't have it at our fingertips.

All right. That's a bucket list to stump you twice, Frank. I appreciate it.

Yes. Luke, you're on a roll. More questions. Luke, do you have any other question? I'm sorry to do this to you.

Yes. So on the -- and just sticking on the guide here as you guys think about the pickup and in the business. But like from a demand perspective, what needs to get better? Is it all on the academic side? Are you seeing continued momentum on the pharma? Anything there from a geography or end market that needs to actually improve for you to realize that back end -- the 4Q guide?

Quite honestly, almost everything is pretty good now. Applied markets, so food and food analysis is a little weak, but that's small for us anyway. And U.S. aca/gov clearly is the one outlier even with U.S. aca/gov , even if it stayed weak, we'll take a growth step up next year. And if U.S. aca/gov came back at least in a modest way, then obviously, we take a bigger growth step up next year. So more and more areas, biopharma has been great in the last 2 or 3 quarters and again, in Q2. So pharma, biopharma, the tools that we sell into that, timsOmni, timsTOF systems, NMRs, spatial biology, X-ray, it's really all quite good, plus then what you -- what people sometimes call these idiosyncratic growth drivers because they're not -- what we call them deep tech now because they're just not all life science, but they are absolutely terrific. However, with this delayed gratification of them typically having 9, sometimes longer -- 9 months or longer delivery times. And that's driven by the customers, not by our capacity.

Just on your other question around bookings growth sequentially, it is up, but I'd say it's low single digits up organically from the previous quarter.

Sequentially.

Yes. Sequentially.

The next question comes from Casey Woodring of JPMorgan.

Yes, just a follow-up on the deep tech piece. I appreciate the comments on semi, but you also flagged strong security detection and energy research orders in the first half of the year. I guess is the strength that you're seeing there and the outperformance, was that something you had expected to begin the year? And was that contemplated in the guide? Or is this kind of incrementally better than expected? And then how do you view the sustainability of both of those businesses in terms of demand as we look into 2027, especially on the security side?

On the security side, that was better than expected, but not hugely better. We expected strong security detection orders but probably not greater than 20%. So it was incrementally better than what we had expected. It seems very -- we have a very good product line there and differentiated products, plus security and defense concerns are not abating. So that looks very sustainable. I think that business for -- as far as I can see or anybody can see, we would expect good growth trends there and with good margins in security detection that started whatever, a couple of years ago, and it's just been getting stronger. So it's incrementally stronger than expected, but partly baked in. A lot of these orders are for things that you deliver to an airport sometime middle of next year. So it doesn't all go into Q2, Q3, Q4. And Energy Research that greatly exceeded in terms of timings and amount that greatly exceeded what we had expected. It's well over 100%. At that level, at that high growth rate, it's not sustainable, but that business is very sustainable because a lot of -- some of these orders are literally for '27, '28 and some go to '29. So they all have very good continuing revenue growth in the foreseeable future. But they've been betting -- I don't know, they've been betting 800 or something instead of the usual batting 400 to use baseball terminology. They've just done really, really well. And their order success rate and win rate has been ahead of their own expectations, and we're delighted.

Got it. That's helpful. And then maybe just a quick follow-up. Europe grew 10%. Maybe just walk through what you're seeing across the businesses in that region.

And what region was that? I didn't catch it.

Europe yes, grew 10%. So just maybe unpack that performance.

I believe it was healthy on NMR on other BioSpin tools as well, EPR and preclinical imaging. It was healthy on the mass spec offerings. I don't have it but for all the other divisions. It was very healthy also on -- sorry, on molecular diagnostics, our ELITech business is just doing great, and they just keep growing and placing instruments ahead of business plan last year. They thought that might settle a little bit. It hasn't first half booking -- sorry, first half placements in molecular diagnostics. The ELITech business was ahead, well ahead of business plan, and that then bodes very well as the consumables pull-through then builds on that larger installed base. Those were some of the highlights.

Yes. And I'd just add, biopharma was solid as well in that -- in the quarter in Europe.

Right.

The next question comes from Dan Arias of Stifel.

Frank, just a follow-up on your comments around revenue recognition timing tied to the metrology business. What portion of the portfolio falls into that bucket of 6-plus quarters when it comes to acceptance and just hitting the P&L? Just trying to get my hands around on pie charts, et cetera, within that business.

So okay, the deep tech portfolio is maybe altogether is around 15% of our portfolio. Now I cannot break out how much of that would have 3 or 4 quarters delivery time versus 6 and longer that I can't break out readily. But the deep tech portfolio with a longer delivery times of, let's say, 3 to 6 quarters is about 15% of our portfolio. And that does not include, in this case, we have not 15%, we have not included Supercon Technologies. I guess you could also call that deep tech, but I didn't put that into that bucket. Here, I looked at instruments and systems and modules rather than superconducting wires. So if you Yes. So 15% is deep tech semiconductor metrology, security detection, energy research. But in this case, I did not bundle the Supercon solutions into that, that, of course, they have -- they get these 5- or 7-year framework contracts. That has a very different rhythm. But about 15%, I think, is the question that you're looking for. 15% is probably what you're looking for.

Okay. Helpful. And then just maybe on input costs, which you guys referenced before, the market for helium is pretty tight again. How much is that a factor for your magnets business at this point? I mean it's been material in the past, but I know that you guys have worked to have those machines be less helium intense than they used to be. So just kind of trying to check in on whether that's something to think about.

Yes. No, it's something we think about. And of course, there is even blockades and all, right? So it's manageable because we've taken so many proactive steps in recent years. First of all, at our factories and final test sites that use a lot of helium, they really all have helium liquefaction, sorry is the terminology. So we capture all of it and liquefy all of it. And I think we're at 80%, 90% that we liquefy. In addition, many of our newer magnets for the customers and also for our deliveries and installations have considerably lower helium consumption. And we've offered now for some years, we and also some other third-party vendors helium gas capture and recompression, repurification, liquefaction solutions. So more and more of the larger labs are equipped with that. So I'm not saying it's pain-free, but it's been greatly mitigated. And I'd say at the overall financial level, it's not something we need to highlight. It's manageable.

The next question will come from Jack Meehan of Operon Research.

I wanted to dig a little bit more -- dig more into CALID first. The microbiology business flat year-to-date. Can you just give us an update on what you're seeing in MALDI? Historically, that's been a pretty steady double-digit grower. Are there any regional or competitive dynamics you would call out?

Jack, so no, I don't think so. I think there's just also some quarterly fluctuations. They ended up getting some very large deals that they'll expect to deliver in Q3 and Q4, for instance, in Latin America and some other places. So I think that's more of a fluctuation. Generally, that instruments business tends to be maybe now a mid, sometimes high single-digit grower, but the aftermarket for that business tends to be in the double-digit grower. So that's also our expectation for the year.

Great. Okay. And then I appreciate all the color in terms of the cost savings program cadence. I was wondering if you could humor us and just talk about like how you feel about the trajectory on margins into 2027. How much of that we can assume just kind of builds into the next year versus areas you might be looking to reinvest?

Okay. Well, we're not ready for '27 color or guidance. But yes, we very much intend to again grow our margins well above 100 bps next year as well from our '26 basis. And of course, we're looking for double-digit, hopefully, mid-teens EPS, non-GAAP EPS growth next year as well. As we had said and that, that won't end with '27, we're really on a -- our goal is to drive back towards a 20% EBIT operating margin as quickly as possible and then more gradually move up to the low 20s in EBIT and mid-20s in EBITDA.

Congrats on Operon.

One more question, are we -- one more question. Yes.

Okay. Yes, Operator. We can do one more question.

One more question. Okay. Our next question will come from Brendan Digan of Citi.

This is Albert Hu on for Brendan. I just want to circle back on the 4Q growth. I kind of want to exactly understand what is baked in. We got the $20 million push out from 3Q, the ultra-high field that was originally supposed to be in 2Q, got pushed to 4Q. Am I missing anything here? And can you remind us what -- why exactly they got pushed out in the first place? And then what's the confidence level that it will get pushed out again?

Okay. So the third item is, of course, that currency has turned this year with Q3 being the switchover point where a revenue currency tailwind turns into a revenue currency headwind. So for the year, as you've seen, that's the FX part that we adjusted in our overall guidance. It's now 0.5% tailwind, and it used to be 1.5% tailwind. And the biggest effect of that is in Q3 and in Q4. So that's not organic. So maybe it's not -- it shouldn't be a concern, but just saying. Q4 growth, yes, mostly the EUR 20 million in deliveries that we -- that I think are shifting from -- that Gerald said are shifting from Q3 to Q4. It's almost all semi. -- simply when the sites are ready, when the customers are ready. And of course, it's a little different in the mix from what we had expected at the beginning of the year. We're a little bit more semi-heavy and faster turning aca/gov. So in the U.S., still weaker than we had expected because monies are coming out later. And the ultra-high field that we are expecting in Q4 revenue, I mean, these things are never guaranteed because we have to install them. But I think our success ratio of delivery and success on installations is greater than 80% -- but don't get hung up on that either. The NMR business always has the ability to make it up. If one slides out, they'll try to fill in something else. So we're pretty comfortable with our strong Q4 guidance at this -- or implied guidance for Q4 at this point. I think that's simply what happens every year. We try to smooth it out a little bit. And then during the year, some customer delays or sometimes technical delays come in. So I think we'll be cool in Q4 and Q4 should be a good quarter and Q3 should be okay, but sequentially not as strong as what we had expected.

This concludes our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the call back over to Joe Kostka for any closing remarks.

Thank you for joining us today. Bruker's leadership team looks forward to meeting with you at an event or speaking with you directly during the third quarter. Feel free to reach out to me to arrange a follow-up. Have a good day.

The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation, and you may now disconnect.