Palantir & Nvidia: A Capacity for Worry

Alex Karp, the CEO of Palantir, declared his company “an n of 1.” It’s a phrase that always strikes me as…optimistic. Like someone insisting their sourdough starter is sentient. The numbers were good, admittedly. A 70% revenue jump, U.S. commercial revenue up 137%. Impressive, until you remember that’s what everyone says about their sourdough, right up until it turns into a grey, gelatinous mass. And then, during the earnings call, they started subtly shading Nvidia. Ryan Taylor, Palantir’s Chief Revenue Officer, spoke of “commoditization of cognition” versus “scaling leverage.” It felt…passive-aggressive. Like a potluck where someone brings store-bought cookies and insists they’re artisanal.

I’ve been following both Palantir and Nvidia for a while now, and I have a slightly unpopular opinion. A contrarian take, as they say. It’s not that Nvidia isn’t facing challenges – they absolutely are. But Palantir’s problems are…different. More human. And honestly, I’m starting to suspect they involve a disproportionate number of strongly-opinionated engineers.

A Tale of Two Bottlenecks

Both companies are bumping against the limits of what they can produce. Demand is exceeding supply. It’s a good problem to have, theoretically. I remember a colleague once bragging about being “drowning in orders.” He was also, coincidentally, a terrible swimmer. Nvidia’s Colette Kress said their clouds are “sold out.” Sold out! It sounds like a limited-edition handbag, not the infrastructure powering artificial intelligence. They’re chasing demand, and it’s exceeding expectations. Which, in my experience, usually means someone underestimated. Badly.

Palantir’s Karp, meanwhile, admitted they “don’t have the bandwidth” to take on difficult projects outside of America. It’s a remarkably candid admission. International commercial revenue was up only 8%. Eight percent! My grandmother gets a better return on her savings bonds. He mentioned “hesitance” from Western allies, a polite way of saying they prefer their own tech. It’s a bit like trying to sell someone a used toothbrush. There’s a reason for that hesitation, I suspect. Palantir’s technology isn’t just complex; it demands a certain…dedication. A willingness to completely overhaul your existing systems, and possibly your entire worldview.

Loading widget...

The Harder Problem to Solve

Manufacturing more chips seems… straightforward. You build a factory, you hire people, you make chips. Finding qualified people to implement and support Palantir’s technology? That’s a different beast entirely. It’s like trying to assemble IKEA furniture with instructions written in ancient Sumerian. Nvidia is increasing inventory, locking down supply chains. Sensible. Palantir is…launching a tech fellowship. Teaching users to build AI applications. It feels…endearing, in a slightly desperate way. Like a scout troop trying to repair a spaceship.

They’ve increased expenses by 34%, partly due to “elite technical hiring.” “Elite.” That word always makes me nervous. It implies a level of exclusivity, a secret handshake, a disdain for anyone who doesn’t understand the nuances of advanced algorithm optimization. And Karp admitted they don’t do acquisitions because they have a “thick, dense culture.” A “thick, dense culture.” That’s…a choice. It suggests a certain resistance to outside ideas, a belief that their way is the only way. It’s also, frankly, a little intimidating.

Loading widget...

An Easy Choice for Investors

Karp’s claim that Palantir is “an n of 1” feels…optimistic. Nvidia is growing faster. Palantir projects 9% sequential revenue growth, while Nvidia expects 14%. It’s not a massive difference, but it’s a difference. And Nvidia’s valuation is far more attractive. Less than 25 times forward earnings, compared to Palantir’s nearly 164. That’s a significant disparity. It’s like comparing a reasonably priced apartment to a penthouse overlooking Central Park.

If I’m right, Nvidia will have an easier time addressing its challenges than Palantir. And when you consider everything, I think investors looking for a true “n of 1” have a pretty easy choice. It’s not about which company is better; it’s about which company is more likely to avoid a complete and utter meltdown. And in this market, that’s a surprisingly important distinction.

Read More

2026-02-05 12:53