The biggest problem with Oracle is not slow growth, but that the times have changed.

Today, let's continue talking about the U.S. stock company - Oracle. A fan friend mentioned it before, but I actually looked into it quite early, and I thought it was average, so I didn't rush to talk about it.

In our traditional impression, we all know that it is a company specializing in databases. I remember more than ten years ago when I interned, most larger foreign companies used Oracle databases, called relational databases! It is also definitely a dominant presence in this field because a database system could sell for tens of millions, which was beyond my understanding at the time.

Why are its databases so powerful? Because large companies have extensive and complex business data, such as airlines, hospital systems, financial systems, etc. These absolutely cannot have any errors, and Oracle excels in high concurrency and data consistency features, which is why it sells so well.

However, over the years, as time has passed, more types of databases have appeared, such as MySQL, cloud databases, etc., which are also continuously developing. The main reason is that Oracle is too expensive! A set of database licenses costing tens of millions to hundreds of millions per year is only affordable for high-end players.

In recent years, they have shifted to cloud computing and cloud application businesses, including Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, SaaS (ERP), AI infrastructure, etc.

But I personally think they have no choice; after all, traditional database sales are becoming increasingly difficult. The number of large customers who can afford it is limited, and growth is sluggish! As mentioned in AI horror stories, although database-related businesses are slightly better than SaaS ecosystems, they are still similar, and software is more easily replaced. Moreover, the license sales business model itself is not a good model; the internet has long since started to play the game of "the wool comes from the pig," and the dog pays the bill!

Of course, their current focus on cloud business is also a move to survive in the AI wave. I think it’s hard to compete with top players like Amazon, Google, etc. If this AI wave recedes, they will lose their advantage in this area, and traditional database businesses will become even harder to do. This is my overall judgment of their big direction.

Financial Data

Market value: 554 billion USD, P/E ratio: 35 times, quite high.

Revenue has actually been increasing every year since 2020, with a relatively stable growth rate:

In 2021, revenue was 42.4 billion, net income 6.7 billion;

In 2022, revenue was 49.9 billion, net income 8.5 billion;

In 2023, revenue was 52.9 billion, net income 10.4 billion;

In 2024, revenue was 57.4 billion, net income 12.4 billion;

For 2025, they have reported the first three quarters: revenue of 149 + 160 + 171 = 19B, with an estimated Q4 of 190 million, so total revenue for 2025 is approximately 67 billion, still growing.

Seeing this, everyone might think this company is pretty good, with five consecutive years of growth and increasing net income. First of all, I think employees of listed companies are not easy; maintaining annual growth in business requires a lot of effort, especially considering this is during the AI demand surge, riding on a wave of hype.

Before 2020, its P/E ratio was around 17, but since 2021, it skyrocketed to over 30. Although the stock price has halved from September 2025 to around 180, it is still overvalued. The P/E ratio should be below 20, and I think its future profitability is average. First, traditional customers used to rely heavily on its database and are unlikely to abandon it easily, but in the long run, this model probably won't hold up.