By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel generally agrees that both NuScale and Oklo are pre-revenue nuclear plays with significant regulatory hurdles and uncertain timelines to commercial viability. They express bearish sentiments due to high valuations, lack of binding contracts, and potential risks in AI data center power demand and grid-scale renewables.
Risk: The single biggest risk flagged is the potential for both companies to fail to convert non-binding frameworks into binding revenue, leading to a 'dilution trap' and wiping out current shareholders.
Opportunity: The single biggest opportunity flagged is the possibility of Oklo converting non-binding frameworks into binding revenue faster than NuScale through national security priorities, potentially closing the regulatory gap by 2026-27.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
NuScale Power holds a first-mover advantage with the only small modular reactor design to receive U.S. regulatory certification.
Oklo targets high-growth data center demand through modular powerhouses and a unique fuel recycling business model.
As the race for carbon-free energy intensifies, which nuclear innovator deserves a spot in your portfolio?
As the tech sector hunts for reliable, carbon-free energy to power data centers, investors are looking at NuScale Power (NYSE:SMR) and Oklo (NYSE:OKLO) to see which stock is a better buy.
NuScale focuses on its certified reactor design to serve traditional utilities and industrial clients. Oklo takes a different route, planning to build and operate its own fast-fission plants with high-profile backing. Both firms are leading the shift toward modular nuclear power, but they carry very different financial profiles and development timelines.
NuScale Power is developing proprietary small modular reactor (SMR) technology and related plant services to generate carbon-free power. Its target markets include data centers, desalination plants, and commercial hydrogen production.
The company aims to be a leader among electric utility stocks by providing carbon-free electricity to industrial and commercial users. However, it has an exclusive commercialization partner, ENTRA1 Energy. That adds a layer of risk to the business because NuScale is obligated to make large milestone payments to ENTRA1 without guaranteed revenue contracts in return.
Nuscal hasn’t commercialized its technology, so it’s not generating any meaningful revenue yet and remains deep in losses. It doesn’t have any long-term debt, though, and ended the first quarter with $341 million in cash and cash equivalents and another $836 million in short-term investments. That’s nearly $1 billion that the company can bank on any time if it wants cash to run operations and fund growth.
Oklo is developing fast-fission power plants, called Aurora powerhouses, and fuel recycling technology to produce carbon-free energy. It eventually aims to make money by selling electricity, targeting high-demand users like data centers and industrial facilities. It has already gained traction through a prepayment agreement with Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META) and non-binding interest from Equinix (NASDAQ:EQIX). Oklo has also signed a master power agreement with Switch for 12 gigawatts (GW) of capacity. These agreements show strong interest from major technology companies looking for reliable energy.
Oklo is a pre-revenue company, as its power plants are still in the early stages of permitting and construction. It’s a loss-making company as it is investing heavily in engineering and regulatory approvals. Like NuScale, Oklo also doesn’t carry any long-term debt but has a massive cash balance of over $2 billion, thanks mainly to recent stock sale.
NuScale faces risks because it has not yet signed binding contracts to deliver its reactor modules, which leaves its future revenue uncertain. It must also compete against large, state-supported entities like China National Nuclear Corporation and other global players in the nuclear sector. There are also concerns that the cost of its electricity might not be competitive against other energy sources in the U.S. Delays in the design or manufacture of its first commercial units could also harm its reputation and financial health.
Oklo has not yet built any powerhouses or secured binding purchase agreements, making its future performance difficult for investors to predict. Building fuel recycling facilities is also a complex process that could face regulatory hurdles or cost overruns. Finally, any negative public perception of nuclear energy could severely limit the demand for its technology.
While Oklo is valued based on high future earnings estimates, NuScale is currently priced relative to its sales because it has not yet reached profitability.
| Metric | NuScale Power | Oklo | |---|---|---| | Forward P/E | n/a | 141.6x | | P/S ratio | 98.5x | n/a |
Sector benchmark uses the SPDR XLU sector ETF.Valuation metrics sourced from Financial Modeling Prep (FMP) and may differ from other data providers.
Both Oklo and NuScale Power are riding the massive tailwinds of artificial intelligence (AI) data center energy demand and the U.S. government’s backing of nuclear energy. The Trump administration aims to quadruple U.S. nuclear capacity to 400 GW by 2050 and is fast-tracking the development of new reactors.
Between the two stocks, though, I’d buy Oklo. That’s because of stronger collaborations and partnerships, as well as operational progress.
Oklo is already part of multiple Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear pilot programs. It has a major July 4 target to achieve criticality (self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction) at its Groves Isotope Test Reactor in Texas.
It is also making progress in nuclear fuel recycling and is building facilities, since fast-fission plants can run on both fresh and used fuel. That’s a huge competitive advantage because the U.S. has a massive stockpile of unused energy such as plutonium left over from commercial nuclear waste , which the government wants to put to use. The DOE has just selected Oklo, along with a few other companies, for its Surplus Plutonium Utilization Program.
Oklo also has major partnerships. For example, it is collaborating with Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) to use the tech giant’s AI computing power and software for nuclear research and development.
NuScale is the first company to win design approval for its SMRs from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Through programs like ENTRA1 Energy’s 6 GW deal with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), NuScale also has a strong project pipeline.
Yet, Oklo’s direct collaborations with the DOE and companies like Nvidia, and a massive cash balance, make it a tad “safer” than NuScale Power.
Before you buy stock in NuScale Power, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and NuScale Power wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $472,852! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,317,207!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 984% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 210% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of May 27, 2026. *
Neha Chamaria has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Equinix, Meta Platforms, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool recommends NuScale Power. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Oklo’s aggressive 2026 timeline hinges on unproven regulatory and technical milestones that NuScale has already cleared."
The article correctly flags both firms as pre-revenue nuclear plays riding AI power demand, yet overstates Oklo’s edge. NuScale’s NRC design certification is a multi-year regulatory moat that Oklo still lacks; achieving criticality by July 4 at a test reactor and scaling fuel recycling both carry execution and approval risks the piece downplays. Oklo’s $2B cash and Nvidia tie-up are real, but its 141.6x forward P/E rests on non-binding letters and DOE pilots that have historically slipped. NuScale’s ENTRA1 dependency is a flaw, yet its certified product is closer to revenue recognition than Oklo’s Aurora units.
Oklo’s direct DOE Surplus Plutonium program selection and Meta prepayment could compress its regulatory timeline faster than NuScale’s utility channel, rendering the certification gap less decisive by 2027.
"Both stocks are priced for flawless execution in a market (modular nuclear) that has never achieved commercial scale, and neither has binding revenue contracts to justify current multiples."
This article conflates regulatory progress with commercial viability. Oklo's 141.6x forward P/E is not a 'safer' valuation—it's a bet that fuel recycling scales profitably at industrial speed, which has never been proven. NuScale's 98.5x P/S is equally speculative but at least anchored to a certified design. The article glosses over that neither company has built a paying plant or locked binding long-term contracts. Oklo's Meta prepayment and Switch MPA are non-binding frameworks, not revenue. Both have ~$1-2B cash runways, but that's a timer, not a moat. The real risk: if AI data center power demand softens or grid-scale renewables + storage become cheaper faster than SMRs can deploy, both collapse regardless of DOE backing.
Oklo's DOE partnerships and plutonium recycling program could be a genuine first-mover advantage in a government-directed energy transition, and its tech-sector relationships (Nvidia, Meta) signal real demand signals the article doesn't overstate.
"N/A"
[Unavailable]
"The biggest risk is that both stocks are pre-revenue, long-cycle bets where a favorable policy environment and one or two large customers could still fail to materialize into meaningful profits by 2026."
Headline risk aside, the NuScale/Oklo comparison reads like a bias favoring future energy tech over near-term financial reality. The article overplays Oklo’s DOE pilots and Nvidia tie-ins as near-term catalysts while glossing over the massive, multi-year regulatory, permitting, and construction hurdles that govern any nuclear project. Both firms are pre-revenue; Oklo's cash hoard offers runway but valuation implies several decades of earnings once pilots scale, which is far from guaranteed. NuScale’s NRC-certified SMR is meaningful, yet its revenue model rests on long-term contracts that are unpriced into current multiples. In a world of policy shifts and rising capex, uncertainty remains the default.
The bullish counterpoint is that steady DOE support and industry pilots could translate into actual revenue sooner than expected, especially if Nvidia AI tooling speeds R&D breakthroughs. A large cash balance reduces dilution risk and could cushion the path to first power, supporting more reasonable valuations than the market fears.
"Oklo's DOE plutonium selection creates a faster revenue conversion path than the non-binding contract risks imply for either firm."
Claude's shared-collapse scenario ignores how Oklo's direct DOE plutonium program selection could convert non-binding frameworks into binding revenue faster than NuScale's utility-dependent model. National security priorities often accelerate such paths, potentially closing the regulatory gap Grok flags by 2026-27 even if fuel recycling execution stays unproven. This timeline compression is the unaddressed variable.
"Political tailwinds compress timelines for approvals and contracts, not for unproven fuel-recycling economics at commercial scale."
Grok's national-security-acceleration thesis deserves scrutiny. DOE plutonium programs *are* politically durable, but 'converting non-binding frameworks into binding revenue by 2026-27' conflates policy priority with engineering reality. Oklo still needs fuel-recycling proof-of-concept at scale—something no U.S. reactor has demonstrated profitably. DOE backing speeds *permitting*, not physics. Claude's timer argument holds: cash runway matters only if the underlying tech works. National security doesn't repeal thermodynamics.
"The primary risk for both companies is a capital-dilution cycle triggered by inevitable regulatory and engineering delays, regardless of DOE support."
Claude is right that physics doesn't care about politics, but Grok misses the capital allocation risk. Both firms are burning cash to solve engineering problems that aren't yet market-ready. The real danger isn't just a failed reactor; it's the 'dilution trap.' If these firms hit a regulatory wall, they will be forced to raise capital at depressed valuations, wiping out current shareholders. The AI power narrative is a distraction from the brutal reality of nuclear infrastructure lead times.
"Policy acceleration alone won't convert non-binding DOE actions into binding revenue by 2026-27; real revenue requires demonstrated fuel recycling at scale and secured customer contracts, which are not guaranteed."
Grok's timeline bet on DOE plutonium programs turning non-binding pilots into binding revenue by 2026-27 hinges on policy more than physics or market demand. Even with government direction, fuel recycling proof at scale, licensing hurdles, and utility offtake remain veto points. The material risk: cash runway buys time, not certainty; if pilots stall or costs overrun, dilution traps and failed commercialization follow, regardless of national-security urgency.
The panel generally agrees that both NuScale and Oklo are pre-revenue nuclear plays with significant regulatory hurdles and uncertain timelines to commercial viability. They express bearish sentiments due to high valuations, lack of binding contracts, and potential risks in AI data center power demand and grid-scale renewables.
The single biggest opportunity flagged is the possibility of Oklo converting non-binding frameworks into binding revenue faster than NuScale through national security priorities, potentially closing the regulatory gap by 2026-27.
The single biggest risk flagged is the potential for both companies to fail to convert non-binding frameworks into binding revenue, leading to a 'dilution trap' and wiping out current shareholders.