AI Infrastructure Boom: Comparing Nebius Group and Iren Limited's Path to Profitability

The $3-4 Trillion AI Infrastructure Opportunity

The artificial intelligence infrastructure sector is poised for explosive growth. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has projected that companies worldwide will invest between $3 trillion and $4 trillion in AI infrastructure and data centers by 2030. This isn’t mere speculation—Huang’s track record on industry trends has proven remarkably accurate. As organizations rush to deploy AI systems, cloud-based infrastructure becomes increasingly critical, driving demand for GPU capacity and data center operations globally.

Two companies are positioning themselves at the center of this boom: Nebius Group and Iren Limited. While both operate in the AI infrastructure space, their business models, geographic footprints, and paths to profitability diverge significantly.

Nebius Group: Aggressive Growth at a Cost

Nebius Group, headquartered in the Netherlands, represents a dramatic corporate transformation. The company evolved from Yandex N.V., a Russian internet giant that faced trading suspension on Nasdaq following geopolitical sanctions. After divesting Russian operations and rebranding, Nebius emerged as a pure-play AI infrastructure provider.

The company now operates massive GPU clusters powered by Nvidia’s processors across Europe, the Middle East, and the United States—a geographic spread that positions it to serve diverse markets. Nebius offers flexible access to up to 32 Nvidia H100 and H200 GPUs on demand, along with long-term contracts featuring Nvidia’s latest Blackwell GPUs.

Financial Performance:

• Q3 revenue hit $146.1 million, representing 355% year-over-year growth
• Full-year net losses reached $273.7 million
• Q3 net loss: $100.4 million

Major Partnerships:

• $19.4 billion deal with Microsoft announced in September
• $3 billion five-year agreement with Meta Platforms

CEO Arkady Volozh articulated the company’s strategy in shareholder communications: “We have consistently said that we are committed to growing our business aggressively, and we are continuing to deliver on this commitment. 2025 has been a building year as we put in place the infrastructure and framework for future rapid growth.”

Nebius aims to achieve 1 gigawatt of contracted power capacity by end of 2026, with expansion plans targeting up to 2.5 GW. However, the enormous capital requirements for data center construction and operation mean profitability remains distant.

Iren Limited: The Bitcoin-Subsidized Model

Iren Limited, an Australian-based company, takes a fundamentally different approach. While also providing AI infrastructure services, Iren generates the majority of its revenue from Bitcoin mining operations—a crucial distinction that allows the company to maintain profitability while scaling data center capabilities.

Iren operates four data centers (three in Canada, one in Texas) with a second Texas facility under construction. The company’s geographic footprint, spanning from Canada to Texas, demonstrates strategic positioning for North American GPU deployment.

Financial Performance:

• Q1 fiscal 2026 revenue (ended Sept. 30, 2025): $240.3 million, up 335% year-over-year
• Net income: $384.6 million (compared to a $51.7 million loss the prior year)
• Bitcoin mining revenue: $232.9 million (97% of total revenue)
• AI cloud services revenue: $7.3 million

Major Partnerships:

• $9.7 billion contract with Microsoft for cloud computing services using Nvidia GPUs
• $5.8 billion GPU and equipment purchase from Dell Technologies

Co-CEO Daniel Roberts emphasized the company’s scalability thesis: “Looking ahead, our announced expansion to 140k GPUs represents only 16% of our 3 GW grid-connected power portfolio, providing ample capacity to continue scaling Iren’s AI cloud platform and drive long-term value creation.”

Business Model Comparison: Capital Requirements vs. Revenue Diversification

The fundamental difference between these companies centers on funding strategy and near-term profitability. Nebius pursues aggressive infrastructure expansion financed through capital raises and debt, betting that AI revenue will eventually justify massive upfront investments. Iren, by contrast, uses cryptocurrency mining profits as a self-funding mechanism for data center buildout.

This distinction carries significant implications. Iren’s profitable status insulates the company from pressures to raise capital at unfavorable valuations or accumulate concerning debt levels. Nebius faces the opposite situation—continued expansion requires either additional funding rounds or achieving profitability faster than current trajectories suggest.

Both companies operate across substantial geographic territories. While Nebius dominates European and Middle Eastern infrastructure (positioning relative to Europe’s AI infrastructure needs), Iren controls significant Texas capacity alongside Canadian operations—a relevant consideration given regional variations in power costs, regulatory environments, and proximity to key markets.

Investment Considerations: Risk vs. Reward

The AI infrastructure sector presents compelling opportunities, but these companies represent different risk profiles:

Nebius Group attracts investors seeking exposure to Europe’s AI buildout and mega-deals with technology giants. However, mounting losses and capital intensity create uncertainty about valuation sustainability.

Iren Limited appeals to investors prioritizing near-term profitability and balance sheet strength. The Bitcoin mining revenue provides a financial buffer while AI cloud services scale from a small base.

The infrastructure sector demands continuous capital investment—GPU technology cycles advance rapidly, requiring ongoing hardware refreshes. Companies requiring external funding face more pressures than those generating internal cash flows.

The Bottom Line

Both companies participate in the $3-4 trillion infrastructure opportunity Huang identified. Nebius demonstrates faster AI revenue growth, while Iren demonstrates profitability and self-sufficiency. The choice between them depends on individual risk tolerance and investment philosophy regarding high-growth, capital-intensive businesses versus profitable companies with near-term earnings visibility.