The call in brief

AbCellera's second-quarter 2026 call centered on business-development momentum for its T-cell engager (TCE) platform and the imminent, pivotal phase II readout for lead asset ABCL635 in menopausal hot flashes. The company signed two new TCE collaborations, with Vertex and Jazz Pharmaceuticals, adding over $110 million in upfront cash; the Jazz deal -- three confirmed programs, $84 million near-term upfront, over $2 billion in potential downstream payments, and more than $4 billion total potential value -- ranks among the largest TCE discovery deals reported to date. After five years of investment, management framed the TCE platform as fully built and now shifting from capability-building to execution for both internal and partner programs. On the pipeline, ABCL635 completed phase II enrollment and initial dosing ahead of schedule in June, with a top-line readout expected very soon; management is targeting a clean safety profile (no liver-monitoring burden or somnolence seen with approved small molecules), a frequency response of at least about 20% versus placebo, and a large market spanning over a million hormone-contraindicated U.S. women plus cancer-therapy-related VMS. Financially, the quarter reflected the pivot to internal programs: revenue fell to roughly $4 million from about $17 million and the net loss widened to about $55 million, or $0.18 per share. Liquidity remained a clear strength -- over $565 million in cash plus roughly $110 million of secured government funding, more than $675 million total, enough to fund at least three years of pipeline investment. The chief open risk remains scientific: whether preoptic NK3R blockade matters for ABCL635 efficacy, a question the phase II data will soon answer.

What went well
  • AbCellera signed two new T-cell engager (TCE) collaborations -- with Vertex and with Jazz Pharmaceuticals -- adding over $110 million in upfront cash to the balance sheet, on top of downstream payments and tiered royalties.
  • The Jazz TCE deal is one of the largest TCE discovery deals reported to date, covering three confirmed programs with $84 million in near-term upfront payments ($56 million already received), over $2 billion in potential downstream payments, and total potential value exceeding $4 billion including two optioned programs.
  • The lead clinical asset ABCL635 for moderate-to-severe menopausal hot flashes (VMS) completed enrollment and initial dosing ahead of schedule in June, setting up a top-line phase II readout 'very soon' that management believes would highly de-risk the program if positive.
  • The balance sheet remains strong, with over $565 million in cash and equivalents plus roughly $110 million of secured government funding -- over $675 million in total available liquidity, sufficient to fund at least the next three years of pipeline investment.
  • SG&A fell to approximately $14 million from $22 million a year earlier, reflecting the conclusion of the IP litigation case and team changes tied to the internal-pipeline focus.
  • The board added two experienced biopharma executives, Dr. Victor Sandor and Dr. Lynn Seely, as independent directors, bringing development expertise across oncology, women's health, immunology, and endocrinology.
What went wrong
  • Revenue fell to approximately $4 million from about $17 million a year earlier, consisting mostly of research fees, as the model shifts toward internal-pipeline value creation rather than near-term service revenue.
  • The net loss widened to roughly $55 million ($0.18 per share) from about $35 million a year earlier, reflecting higher R&D investment in internal programs.
  • R&D expense rose about $7 million year-over-year to approximately $46 million as spending concentrated on internal programs.
  • Management missed its earlier goal of moving another program into IND-enabling activities in the first half of the year, though it said good progress continues.
  • The core scientific risk on ABCL635 remains unresolved -- whether blocking NK3R in the preoptic nucleus (beyond suppressing KNDy neurons) matters for efficacy -- an open question that only the imminent phase II data can answer.
  • ABCL575 will be discontinued after phase I as previously planned, with a readout still expected in Q4 but no development beyond phase I.

Management Commentary

Tryn Stimart
Chief Legal and Compliance Officer, AbCellera

Thank you. Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us for AbCellera's second quarter 2026 earnings call. I'm Tryn Stimart, AbCellera's Chief Legal and Compliance Officer. Dr. Carl Hansen, AbCellera's President and CEO, and Andrew Booth, AbCellera's Chief Financial Officer are speaking on today's call. During this call, we may make statements about our strategic priorities and financial outlook based on our current expectations and in accordance with the Safe Harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Our statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described. Please review the Risk Factors section of our most recent Form 10-K and subsequent 10-Q filings with the SEC for a more detailed discussion of these risks. AbCellera assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after today's date.

Our presentation today, our earnings press release, and our SEC filings are available on our Investor Relations website. The information we provide about our pipeline is intended for the investment community and is not promotional. As we transition to our prepared remarks, please note that this call is being recorded and will be available for replay on our investor relations website, and that all dollars referred to during the call are U.S. dollars. After our prepared remarks, we will open the lines for questions and answers. Now, I'll turn the call over to Carl.

Carl Hansen
President and CEO, AbCellera

Thanks, Tryn, and thank you everyone for joining us today. The most important data readout this year is the top-line results for ABCL635 in the treatment of moderate to severe hot flashes associated with menopause. Last quarter, we shared our interim phase I data that showed robust and sustained target engagement in healthy male volunteers and supported quickly advancing into a phase II study in post-menopausal women experiencing moderate to severe hot flashes. Recruitment in this study accelerated through H1, and we completed enrollment and initial dosing of patients in June, well ahead of schedule. Based on this, we expect a top-line data readout very soon. If the data is positive, we believe ABCL635 will be highly de-risked.

As noted in our last call, we've been preparing for next steps, which would include late-stage clinical development in moderate to severe VMS associated with menopause and clinical studies to evaluate ABCL635 in treating VMS associated with cancer treatment. Turning to our broader portfolio, ABCL688 and ABCL386 continue to progress through IND-enabling activities, and we expect both to enter phase I/II studies in 2027. We will disclose more information on these programs when they enter clinical studies. Our phase I trial for ABCL575 completed dosing and is on track for a readout in Q4. As previously discussed, we intend to complete phase I studies, and we currently have no plans to develop it past phase I. Finally, I had previously communicated a goal of moving another program into IND-enabling activities in the first half of this year.

Although we missed this timeline, we are making good progress, and I'm confident in the productivity and innovation of discovery. The most significant public disclosures since our last earnings call are related to business development associated with our T-cell engager platform. As a reminder, it was five years ago that we started working on TCEs, and since then, we have invested heavily in the platform. Our efforts began with the hypothesis that more diverse CD3 binders would be important for engineering TCEs with improved therapeutic properties. Our internal work to date has proven this to be true, but it's also revealed that diversity of CD3 binders alone is not sufficient. Today, we know that repeated success in generating optimal TCEs requires a comprehensive toolkit of binders, technologies, assays, models, and biological insight.

Accordingly, our platform now includes diverse panels of CD3-targeting antibodies along with proprietary panels of costimulatory antibodies to enhance and fine-tune TCE function, scalable protein engineering workflows to create a large diversity of binder combinations and formats, scalable in vitro assays to assess TCE function and development properties, experience in the translation between in vitro assays and in vivo models across multiple targets, and increasingly, a connection between TCE properties and third-party clinical data. Together, we believe this creates a highly enabled platform for developing multi-specific TCEs with broad applications across oncology and autoimmunity. While we are leveraging this capability to advance internal programs, we also view it as a key platform for strategic partnerships. Last year, we announced our first significant TCE collaboration with AbbVie. Adding to this, we have recently entered into two new TCE collaborations with Vertex and with Jazz.

These two deals are adding over $110 million in upfront cash to our balance sheet and have the potential for larger value in downstream payments and tiered royalties on net sales. Last week, we announced our most recent collaboration, which is with Vertex, focused on TCEs for autoimmune diseases and other conditions. Under the terms of the deal, AbCellera will receive $28 million in upfront payments, is eligible for potential downstream payments and tiered royalties on net sales, and as a potential option to conduct process development and clinical manufacturing. In June, we also announced a collaboration with Jazz Pharmaceuticals that includes three confirmed discovery programs with $84 million in total near-term upfront payments. We have received $56 million in upfront payments for the first two programs, and we will receive another $28 million for the third program, which will be initiated within the next 12 months.

Under the agreement, AbCellera is also eligible to receive over $2 billion in potential downstream payments, along with mid-single-digits to low double-digit tiered royalties on net sales. The deal also includes a mutual option for two additional discovery programs under the same financial terms, and a mutual option for AbCellera to undertake certain R&D enabling activities and clinical manufacturing. The total potential deal value with all five programs included would be over $4 billion. We believe that this is one of the largest TCE discovery deals reported to date. Before handing over to Andrew, I'm pleased to welcome Dr. Victor Sandor and Dr. Lynn Seely as new Independent Directors on AbCellera's board. Dr. Sandor and Dr. Seely are experienced biopharmaceutical executives with proven and complementary expertise in development across oncology, women's health, immunology, and endocrinology.

Lynn and Victor bring deep expertise and development experience that will serve us well as we build our portfolio and our company. With that, I will hand it over to Andrew to discuss our financials. Andrew?

Andrew Booth
CFO, AbCellera

Thanks, Carl. As Carl pointed out, AbCellera continues to be in a strong liquidity position with over $565 million in cash and equivalents and with roughly $110 million in available committed government funding to execute on our strategy. We are continuing to execute on our plans with a focus on internal programs and leveraging our process development and clinical manufacturing investments. Looking at revenue and expenses, revenue for the quarter was around $4 million compared to total revenue of approximately $17 million in the same quarter of 2025. The revenue this quarter consisted mostly of research fees. Our research and development expenses for the quarter were approximately $46 million, approximately $7 million more than last year. This expense reflects the focus on investment in our internal programs. In sales, general, and administration, expenses were approximately $14 million compared to $22 million last year.

The large decrease in SG&A expenses relates to the conclusion of our intellectual property litigation case and to changes in the teams following the focus on our internal pipeline. Looking at earnings, we are reporting a net loss of roughly $55 million for the second quarter of 2026, compared to a loss of about $35 million a year earlier. In terms of earnings per share, this result works out to a loss of $0.18 per share on a basic and diluted basis. Turning to cash, altogether, we finished the quarter with $567 million of total cash and marketable securities. That's a $6 million increase in total cash for the first half of 2026.

Operating activities for the first half of the year used approximately $8 million in cash. Included in the operating cash flow is the receipt of $56 million from the upfront payments under our TCE deal with Jazz. This portion of the upfront payments from the Jazz partnership was received in the quarter. Excluding marketable securities, investment activities year to date included approximately $6 million of capital expenditures offset by $7 million in government grants received. As a part of our treasury strategy, we have $420 million invested in short-term marketable securities. Our investment activities for the quarter included a $15 million investment in these holdings. As a reminder, we have received commitments for funding the advancement of our internal pipeline from the Government of Canada Strategic Innovation Fund and the Government of British Columbia.

This available capital does not show up on our balance sheet. With over $565 million in cash and equivalents and the unused portion of our secured government funding, we have over $675 million in available liquidity to execute on our strategy. In addition, we have further available liquidity from our ownership of the other Vancouver lab-based office building, as well as our GMP facility. With respect to overall company expenditures, our capital needs are very manageable. We continue to believe that we have sufficient liquidity to fund at least the next three years of pipeline investments. With that, we'll be happy to take your questions. Operator?

Analyst Q&A

Steve Seedhouse — Analyst, Cantor
Good afternoon. Thanks so much for taking the question. Just wanted to ask first on the forthcoming VMS data, what in your view is a clinically meaningful improvement in the VMS severity, just in the context of that? I think three-point ordinal scale that's used for assessing severity. Then also, will you have threshold analyses for the VMS frequency data available with top line, something like proportion of patients with 90% or 100% reduction in frequency? Just curious if that's something that will be with the top line. Then I have a follow-up as well.
Carl Hansen — President and CEO, AbCellera
Steve, Carl here. Thanks for the question. First, in terms of the upcoming readout that obviously we're very excited about, our view is that success is a clean safety profile, which so far everything that we've seen through phase I has been entirely consistent with that, and efficacy that tracks in a way that is comparable to the two small molecules that are approved. On the frequency side, we are obviously looking for a response relative to placebo that's on the order of 20% at least, which is about what you see with the small molecules. There's an additional requirement that you have a reduction in frequency of at least two hot flashes per day, which is something that we expect to meet under the same criteria.
On the severity side, we're expecting that if we get the frequency, we're going to track with severity and have numbers that are very comparable to the small molecules. I don't think we've communicated a definitive bar on that one, but historically, the severity has been easier to hit than the frequency, we are really more focused on the frequency side right now.
Steve Seedhouse — Analyst, Cantor
All right. Thanks, Carl. You made some comments, and you've mentioned this before about potential application in cancer. I guess this would be certainly women with breast cancer, but maybe also men on androgen deprivation therapy. It sounded like you were going to look into opening some phase II studies along with the late-stage program in menopause. But I'm curious why not move directly into phase IIIs label-enabling studies in those cancer indications, just given what we've seen from OASIS-4 with VEOZAH, and assuming you'll have positive phase II data in hand yourself and dose selection would be facilitated by that. Would love to get your thoughts on that.
Carl Hansen — President and CEO, AbCellera
Thanks, Steve. It's a great question. Probably it's a question that would be best directed to Sarah, our Chief Medical Officer, since she has been obviously leading point on the regulatory strategy. My understanding is that moving it first into this patient population, which is obviously going to be significantly different, given that you're dealing with patients of oncology, is the first step before moving into later-stage trials, we expect to initiate that relatively soon as we get ready for the larger study on VMS associated with menopause. Of course, there's going to be some gap between a readout and getting the final trial closed up and getting all set up for that. We're sequencing that as quickly as possible.
Speaker — Analyst
Hey, guys. Thank you so much for taking my question. I want to ask a little bit about safety differentiation. The small molecules have liver monitoring requirements. If the upcoming data from ABCL635 reconfirms, I should say, a clean liver profile, can you talk a little bit about what you plan to do in phase III in terms of liver monitoring to help establish a definitive differentiation on this aspect? Also, do you think a clear differentiation on safety would help capture the first-line non-hormonal market? Thank you, and I have a follow-up question.
Carl Hansen — President and CEO, AbCellera
Sure. I'm probably going to not go too deep into this since we are expecting data relatively soon, then we'll have ample opportunity to vet all those questions. Just briefly, as you mentioned, we have been very focused on safety as a key differentiator. Both the two small molecules have liver monitoring. That is inconvenient, both in practice and for patients. We believe that it is a property associated with metabolism of small molecules and one that an antibody should not have. Of course, as reported last earnings call, the data so far shows no perceptible increase in liver enzymes across any of the patients, so that thesis is sound, we expect that that will continue.
In terms of how we look at that going forward, that will be on Sarah's docket, but my expectation is that we will continue to do some monitoring of enzyme levels and make sure that that holds going forward. Frankly, from a scientific perspective, I see no reason why that wouldn't. The other thing that you didn't mention on the safety side is there has been a somnolence side effect associated with the Bayer molecule. That's a somnolence side effect that we believe is associated with binding of that molecule, not just to NK3R, but to NK1R. We have an antibody that is specific, entirely specific to NK3R, we do not expect to see that come up, obviously, we haven't seen any of that in the data that we looked at so far. That's another point that we'll be pushing.
We do think that in addition to the convenience of a once-monthly dosing, improved safety for a product like this is paramount, and we are so far very encouraged by the data we've seen.
Speaker — Analyst
Great. Thank you so much. Just a quick question on the partnerships that you have signed with Vertex, Jazz. Seems like the focus is on multi-specific T-cell engagers. Just wondering if you can talk a little bit about the percentage of internal resources that are dedicated to this TCE platform versus the others, especially the GPCR ion channel platform.
Carl Hansen — President and CEO, AbCellera
It's a great question. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks, our work in TCE is now a longstanding effort. We have spent the last five years putting in place some of the very important building blocks to execute on these types of therapies, and along the way, have learned a lot about what it takes to succeed in this space. Much of that is now in the bank. We're operating now from an established platform. We have extra bandwidth because that work is done to take on additional programs. I expect there will not be a big change in our allocation of resources to TCE, but it will be directed from putting the foundation in place, building the expertise and the capabilities to executing on those capabilities, both for internal programs and for partner programs.
We are very pleased to see that come to fruition and to have attracted two stellar partners in Vertex and Jazz who prioritize high innovation and are serious about bringing these forward to the clinic. Just a last point, with respect to the balance between TCEs and let's say GPCRs and ion channels. I don't have a hard number, but I'd say that there's significantly more effort on the GPCR and ion channel side. TCE has been one of the strong pillars of the pipeline, and we expect it will stay that way for the coming future.
Speaker — Analyst
Great. Thank you so much for the color.
Josh Nickerson — Analyst, Stifel
Hey, good afternoon. This is Josh on for Steve. Thanks for taking our questions and congrats on the progress. Maybe just as a follow-up to the first question asked, specifically on severity. In looking at some of the historical fezolinetant and elinzanetant data, it doesn't appear that fezolinetant actually maybe shows a statistically significant difference on severity at certain time points. It looks like elinzanetant specifically at later time points and at higher doses has kind of shown this. Was wanting to get your thoughts on maybe severity being something that's maybe exposure driven and how you're thinking about that with ABCL635's differentiation with the extended pathway.
Carl Hansen — President and CEO, AbCellera
It's a great question. I don't know exactly the data that you're looking at. Both severity and frequency are important regulatory endpoints that need to be hit. That's the understanding that we're moving on, and we do think that they correlate very well. At the very least, there's well-reported data on dose escalation for fezolinetant, where a dose escalation of fezolinetant showed improved efficacy, both in frequency and in severity. On the severity case, it did look as though that dose response lasted longer or plateaued later than it did on frequency. I think that would be consistent with what you're saying, but I would be cautious to speculate too much with exactly how that's going to play out. In any event, we are anxiously awaiting the data that's coming. We're going to have that answer pretty quick, and then we'll be digging deeper into it.
Josh Nickerson — Analyst, Stifel
Thanks for taking the question.
Malcolm Hoffman — Analyst, BMO Capital Markets
Hi, Malcolm Hoffman on for Evan. Thanks for taking our question. The Vertex collaboration applies to T-cell engagers to autoimmune diseases. Without disclosing the targets, can you discuss what technical features are required to create an acceptable therapeutic profile in these autoimmune diseases, particularly around depth and duration of cell depletion, cytokine release, and repeat dosing? Appreciate it. Thanks.
Carl Hansen — President and CEO, AbCellera
It's a great question. I think you highlighted the important things for cell depleters that are used in autoimmunity. What you want is deep depletion, something that is safe, something that is tolerable. All of that is in play. It also depends on the target and the exact application. So without getting into the details of that, I don't think I could give you a very detailed answer on that particular question.
Allison Bratzel — Analyst, Piper Sandler
Hey, good afternoon, and thanks for taking the question. One from me on ABCL635. Could you just talk to your expectations for the placebo arm in the phase II? Are the small molecule trials a good benchmark of what to expect from the placebo? Could you just talk to aspects of the phase II trial design that are designed to mitigate placebo responses? Thank you.
Carl Hansen — President and CEO, AbCellera
The trials that have been done have all shown a pronounced placebo response. So, our expectation coming into the study is that we will also have a placebo response and that it will be in the range that's comparable to what has been seen. That's our working hypothesis. We're going to know that very soon when we read out the data. In terms of trying to reduce that response, apart from good clinical operations, having a period where you're enrolling patients, not telling people exactly what the numbers need to be before they're enrolled, all of that has been put in place. We feel very confident about the execution. I do think one of the big questions is exactly where that placebo response is going to come out. We'll know shortly. Thanks for the question.
Brendan Smith — Analyst, TD Cowen
Great. Thanks for taking the questions, guys. Maybe another one on ABCL635 from us. First, just quickly, can you confirm that the phase II efficacy data will be out to four weeks in all patients, or will you have any data out to 12 weeks in some patients? Just to check that box there. Secondly, when you look at the commercial opportunity, I guess, in VMS, how are you thinking about a potential phase III in terms of target patients? I guess, are you thinking of this exclusively as a non-hormonal alternative, or would you consider a comparison in a pivotal study maybe with some patients on or refractory to HRT? Just trying to think about how we should segment that market. Thanks.
Carl Hansen — President and CEO, AbCellera
First, the data that we're expecting very soon is going to be data that is four weeks in all patients, and we will not report data on a subset of patients out to 12 weeks. That's the top-line data. Historically, if you look at efficacy data, there's been a very good follow-through between 4-week data and 12-week data. We're feeling confident that we're in a great spot. Also, I should mention that the phase II was done with a single dose of ABCL635. Part of the study is that we are not dosing again, and as the dose comes down, we're getting an effective dose response curve. We would expect that by 12 weeks, the effect should be certainly diminished, although we'll see that when it comes out.
In terms of the phase III, I think it's a little bit early to talk about the design. I think it is a good question as to how you exactly design this and really speaks to the medical need. We think at the very base case, there are a large number of women that are contraindicated and that would benefit from a non-hormonal option. As I've said on previous calls, we think that that's roughly or is probably over a million women in the U.S. alone. In addition to that, there's a very substantial number of people that would benefit from a treatment for hot flashes associated with cancer therapy, where hormones are not an option. That would include both prostate cancer and breast cancer.
There will be some subset that are not tolerant to HRT or that decide not to, and that's a bit of a moving bar these days, but we think there's a big opportunity there as well. We will take all that into consideration once we have the data, and we're making plans for the larger trial.
Brendan Smith — Analyst, TD Cowen
Understood. Thanks, guys.
Debanjana Chatterjee — Analyst, Jones Trading
Hi. Thanks for taking my question, and congrats on the progress with the trial. Curious if you could add any additional color on the blinded safety data that's emerging from the trial. Are the overall adverse event rates that you're seeing on a blinded basis and any potential discontinuation rates tracking within expectations? I have a quick follow-up.
Carl Hansen — President and CEO, AbCellera
We haven't disclosed any safety data past what we did on the last call. What I will say is that there's nothing that we've seen that has given us any pause or damaged our thesis, but of course, we're going to wait till the unblinding and have a close look at that. So far, things are on track.
Debanjana Chatterjee — Analyst, Jones Trading
Thanks. Appreciate it. A quick follow-up. What's your latest take on the debate around whether targeting the medial preoptic nucleus, having inhibiting NK3R receptors there is crucial to seeing potential benefit versus just suppressing the KNDy neurons in the arcuate nucleus?
Carl Hansen — President and CEO, AbCellera
That is a great question, and it's one I think that we've highlighted on past calls. That is the key remaining scientific risk in the program. What I will say is that the phase I data that we presented on the last call shows that we can get profound suppression of testosterone and that we can do that in a way that is deeper than what has been seen by the small molecules and that lasts for the entire dosing interval. That reads right through to the KNDy neurons in the infundibular nucleus. Those are believed to be the most important neurons. I think everyone would agree with that.
From that perspective, if those are the only neurons that matter, then we would expect an efficacious drug and probably a drug that has even better efficacy than what has been seen with the small molecules because the testosterone suppression has been greater. The open question remains as to whether also blocking NK3R in the preoptic nucleus has an effect. We have not done a conclusive experiment pre-clinically to prove that. The experiment to prove that is the phase II data that we'll read out shortly. That's the remaining question. I'm not going to speculate further, but we're feeling very good that we have great target engagement in the neurons that are the main drivers of this. Whether or not taking another kick at the can in the preoptic nucleus matters is something that we're going to find out very shortly.
Debanjana Chatterjee — Analyst, Jones Trading
Thank you so much.
Carl Hansen — President and CEO, AbCellera
Thank you, everyone, for joining the call today. AbCellera is moving into a very exciting time. We look forward to updating you shortly on our pipeline and our portfolio. Thank you.
Source: AbCellera Biologics Inc. earnings call transcript (2026-08-05). Management commentary and analyst Q&A are reproduced as delivered; speaker roles as stated on the call.

More on AbCellera Biologics Inc.

Company

AbCellera Biologics Inc. overview
Facet

Financials

See how VectorShift works for your firm

Request Demo