Oklo vs. NuScale Power: Which Utilities Stock Is a Better Buy in 2026?

NuScale reported FY 2025 revenue of $31.5 million, down about 15%, and a net loss of $355.8 million, versus a $136.6 million loss the prior year; it has U.S. design approval for its small modular reactor. Oklo had no FY 2025 revenue and reported a $105.7 million net loss, up from $73.6 million, while its free cash flow was negative $115.4 million. The article favors NuScale for 2026 based on revenue and regulatory progress, but describes significant commercialization, cash-burn, partnership and legal risks for both companies.

Analysis

The key investment distinction is not design approval versus no approval; it is who bears construction, financing and operating risk. Oklo’s owner-operator model could make a binding hyperscaler contract economically valuable, but it also concentrates project-delivery and capital needs on Oklo. A customer prepayment may help fund development, yet without its size, refund terms and power-delivery milestones it does not establish project bankability. NuScale’s design certification reduces one licensing hurdle, not the separate risks of site approval, financing, customer commitment or construction. Its reported revenue should not be treated as evidence of a repeatable reactor-sales business; verify revenue composition and remaining cash runway, particularly given the sharp increase in reported cash burn.

Second-order, the likely near-term beneficiaries of nuclear delays are dispatchable alternatives and grid equipment providers, not necessarily these developers. Data-center buyers may preserve optionality with nuclear while securing nearer-term power through gas, grid upgrades and storage. That limits the inference that customer interest translates quickly into reactor economics. In the next 1–3 months, contract terms, regulatory milestones, litigation developments and financing disclosures matter more than broad power-demand narratives. Over 6–18 months, binding offtake, fuel availability and credible project financing are the tests. The contrarian risk is that investors capitalize nuclear scarcity before valuing the long lead times and dilution/project-finance burden; conversely, a fully funded, milestone-backed customer commitment would materially improve the thesis.

Key Decisions for Investors

• Do not choose SMR over OKLO solely on design certification or reported revenue. Before taking either as a core position, verify NuScale’s revenue mix, cash and expected burn, and whether any customer has committed to purchase modules on binding terms.
• Keep both as event-driven, high-risk watchlist names rather than a long-term energy allocation at this stage. For OKLO, require disclosure of the Meta prepayment amount, conditions and delivery milestones, plus a credible licensing and fuel path before underwriting project economics.
• For a 1–3 month catalyst trade, avoid chasing broad nuclear or data-center-power headlines; consider only a small, defined-risk position after a verifiable binding offtake or financing milestone. Reassess if either company discloses a material schedule setback, a need for substantial new equity, or adverse litigation/regulatory developments.
• Falsifiers: a funded project with binding customer obligations and achievable milestones would weaken the cautious thesis; continued non-binding interest, rising cash burn without improved project visibility, or delayed fuel/licensing progress would reinforce it. Track these alongside cash runway rather than headline revenue alone.