Postmortem
TL;DR
Snowflake’s Q3 FY26 print checked the boxes on headline expectations: non-GAAP EPS and revenue both came in ahead of consensus, and the company leaned into its AI Data Cloud narrative with new partnerships and raised full-year product revenue guidance.
The market, however, focused on what comes next. Product growth guidance stepped down into the high-20s versus the 30%+ trajectory many investors had effectively priced in, and margin guidance pointed to near-term compression as AI investments ramp. That was enough to flip a crowded long into a sharp downside reaction.
From the pre-earnings reference level around $260, the stock:
- Closed the report day near $265.
- Gapped down to roughly $244 at the next regular-session open (around a -7.9% gap).
- Sold further to about $234.77 by that first post-earnings close (around -11.4% versus the prior close).
Options had been implying roughly a 10% move. The magnitude landed right in that neighborhood—but the direction was the exact opposite of the original bullish call.
What Snowflake Actually Reported
On the quarter itself, the company delivered what most investors would label a clean beat:
- Non-GAAP EPS printed in the mid-30-cent range versus low-30-cents expectations.
- Total revenue landed a bit above $1.2B, modestly ahead of the Street.
- Year-over-year growth was just under 30%, keeping Snowflake firmly in the “high-growth, large-cap software” cohort.
- Profitability improved on an adjusted basis, but GAAP results remained in the red as stock-based comp and AI-driven investment stayed heavy.
The more interesting—and ultimately more important—piece was the guidance and AI framing:
- Q4 product revenue guidance pointed to growth in the high-20s percentage range, a step down from the ~29–30% pace in the just-reported quarter.
- Management raised full-year product revenue targets, but not enough to signal a sustained acceleration beyond what the stock’s rich multiple had already baked in.
- The company highlighted multiple AI and cloud partnerships and pointed to a growing AI revenue run-rate, but investors clearly wanted a more explosive follow-through in near-term growth and margins.
In isolation, this is a solid set of numbers for an $80B+ software platform; in the context of lofty expectations and a stock up 60–70% year-to-date, it landed as “good, not great.”
Price Reaction: From Crowded Long to Vol-Crush in the Wrong Direction
Going into the print, front-week options around the first Friday expiry were pricing roughly a 10% one-day swing off a spot price in the high-$250s. The pre-earnings framework leaned into that, expecting an upside move of ~11% toward the 275–285 call-heavy band if Snowflake delivered a clean beat with firm AI-driven guidance.
What actually happened:
- The stock closed the report day around $265.
- It then opened the next session around $244, putting the overnight gap at roughly -7.9% from the prior close.
- Selling pressure continued intraday, with the first full post-earnings close around $234.77—about -11.4% from the pre-earnings close and close to the lower end of the 230–240 put-heavy support zone highlighted in the preview.
In other words:
- The market used most of the implied move.
- The realized swing was down, not up.
- The downside tail the options skew was quietly paying for ended up being the scenario that played out.
For traders who had paid up for upside in a crowded AI winner, this was a classic “good quarter, disappointing guide” unwind.
Where the Preview Was Right
There were several parts of the original setup that held up well:
-
Fundamentals and AI narrative
The preview leaned on Snowflake as a high-quality, high-growth AI platform with:
- High-20s to ~30% revenue growth.
- Strong gross margins.
- A deep enterprise franchise and large remaining performance obligations.
- A credible AI story around Cortex, Snowpark, and broader AI Data Cloud positioning.
The quarter essentially validated that framing. Revenue growth, gross margin, and the AI platform story all came through as expected. The company also added more fuel to the AI narrative with new partnerships and AI-focused metrics, reinforcing its strategic position.
-
Implied move and volatility regime
The preview correctly identified that the event-week straddle was expensive versus realized volatility and that Snowflake has a history of double-digit post-earnings moves. The realized swing of roughly 11% down was basically in line with the pre-earnings implied move.
From a pure magnitude perspective, the options market priced the risk correctly.
-
Asymmetry of expectations
The original write-up flagged that, at a high-teens price-to-sales multiple with the stock near 52-week highs, traders would demand:
- Product growth at the high end of expectations.
- Firm or improving margin guidance.
- Concrete AI monetization metrics.
It also warned that any sign of decelerating growth or soft guidance could be treated as a de facto miss, even if headline numbers technically beat. That is essentially how the tape reacted: the numbers were fine; the trajectory and tone were not enough for an already-crowded bull story.
Where the Preview Was Wrong
The two big misses were direction and the tone around guidance and AI spending.
-
Direction of the move
The call was for an upside resolution: a beat on the quarter, “strong” guidance, and a post-earnings rally toward the heavy upside call interest in the high-270s to low-280s.
The tape did the opposite:
- The quarter beat expectations.
- But growth guidance and margin commentary fell short of the market’s more aggressive hopes.
- The stock gapped down aggressively, testing the lower support band instead of the call wall.
Directionally, the model pointed the wrong way: the downside scenario—described as a risk case in the preview—ended up being the mainline outcome.
-
Interpreting guidance risk
The preview framed guidance risk as a key “what could break the thesis” item but treated it as a lower-probability tail relative to a clean beat with strong AI-backed guidance.
In hindsight:
- Discounting for large or long-term deals, AI investment, and competitive pressure from hyperscalers made a tempered growth guide more likely than the optimistic base case assumed.
- The market’s sensitivity to even modest deceleration in high-multiple AI software names was under-appreciated.
The result: the guide reset mattered more than the headline beat, and the model’s base case didn’t give that enough weight.
-
Crowded positioning and “sell the news” dynamics
The options and positioning section correctly flagged:
- Heavy call interest above spot.
- Elevated event-week volatility.
- A risk of “sell the news” if the quarter was merely good.
The forecast still leaned into the idea that a strong print would overcome those risks. Instead, with the stock already up sharply year to date, the path of least resistance on a “good but not incredible” report was down, not up.
How the Trade Framework Ideas Fared (Mark-to-Market)
As of the first full trading session after earnings, the illustrative structures in the preview would have looked roughly like this:
-
Directional upside call spread (Dec 5 260/280 calls)
- Thesis: clean beat, strong guidance, stock trades into the high-270s/low-280s.
- Reality: stock gapped down into the mid-230s.
- Mark-to-market: both legs deeply out of the money; this structure would be trading near zero with most, if not all, of the premium at risk. This is the clearest expression of the directional miss.
-
Short iron-condor around a wide range (puts below 230–240, calls above 290–300, Dec 5)
- Thesis: the implied ~10% move is rich; the stock likely ends up inside a broad range unless guidance is extreme.
- Reality: the move was roughly in line with implied, and as of the first post-earnings close the stock had sold into the 230–240 support band highlighted ahead of time.
- Mark-to-market:
- The short call spread would be comfortably out of the money and decaying well.
- The short put spread would be under pressure, with the short strike close to or slightly above spot. P&L would depend heavily on where the stock settles by the Dec 5 expiry and how much premium was collected, but the structure would no longer look like a low-probability tail bet.
-
Medium-term bullish diagonals (long March/Jan call vs short nearer-term Dec call)
- Thesis: the AI platform story persists beyond one print; short near-term premium to fund a longer-dated upside view.
- Reality: the near-term short calls are decaying nicely, but the long calls are now further out of the money after an 11% drawdown.
- Mark-to-market: this structure would likely be down, but not catastrophically so—short-dated decay cushions some of the hit. It still expresses a view that the AI narrative can pull the stock back toward higher levels over coming months.
-
Cautious bullish downside spreads (short 240/long lower-strike put in later expiries)
- Thesis: “buy the dip” in the 230–240 area where the chain shows heavy put interest and potential support.
- Reality: the stock quickly traded down into that zone.
- Mark-to-market: the short put leg is under real pressure as spot sits near the risk area. Anyone running this as a way to add at lower prices is now being challenged to decide whether the fundamental story still justifies owning the name after a guide reset.
The common thread: anything that required an upside resolution suffered, while structures that monetized rich short-term volatility or expressed longer-term, hedged bullishness look more salvageable—provided one still believes the AI data platform story beyond this quarter.
Lessons for Future Setups
Several takeaways stand out for similar high-multiple, AI-adjacent software names:
-
Guidance trumps headline beats at rich multiples
When a stock is already up 60–70% on the year and trading at a premium multiple, a modest beat plus cautiously slower guidance is not “good enough.” Future calls in this cohort should weight the guidance path as heavily as, or more than, the current quarter.
-
Crowded upside positioning is a warning, not a tailwind
Heavy call ownership above spot should be treated as a risk factor for downside gap scenarios, not just confirmation of bullish sentiment. There is real reflexivity when everyone is leaning the same way into an event.
-
Magnitude vs direction are distinct problems
The options market often gets the size of the move roughly right; the hard part is the sign. Future signals should be more willing to separate “we expect a big move” from “we know the direction,” and push directional confidence lower when guidance scenarios are genuinely two-sided.
-
AI narratives now carry an “execution tax”
Names that have rerated on AI hopes are being forced to show concrete, accelerating AI monetization. Even strong AI partnership and product headlines may not offset any hint of growth deceleration or margin compression attributable to AI investment.
-
Risk framing matters as much as the base case
The downside scenario sketched ahead of the print—product growth slowing, guidance wobbling, crowded positioning unwinding into the 230–240 band—is almost exactly what played out. Next time, when the risk case lines up this cleanly with skew, positioning, and valuation, it deserves more weight in the final directional call.
Snowflake’s Q3 FY26 print was not a fundamental disaster. It was a good quarter with guidance and AI spend that failed to clear an exceptionally high bar. For short-term earnings traders, the lesson is simple: in richly valued AI winners, you’re no longer trading the last quarter—you’re trading the shape of the next year.