Airengy Tech: How Repeatable Is the 2025 Revenue Base?
Airengy reported NIS 12.2 million of revenue in 2025, but 90% came from two customers: 72% from defense work the company itself ties to wartime demand, and another 18% from the Kibbutz Yahal project that already ended. So 2025 did not yet create a clean recurring base. It mostly replaced the prior IEC-related one-off with a different, highly concentrated and time-sensitive revenue mix.
Why Revenue Quality Needs To Be Isolated
The main article argued that Airengy's pivot is already producing activity, but not yet clean economics. This follow-up isolates only the revenue side of that argument: does the 2025 top line already look like a base that can reasonably be carried forward, or does it look more like a year that replaced one exceptional item with another kind of exceptional mix.
The answer from the annual report is fairly sharp. In 2025 the company recorded NIS 12.191 million of revenue, all of it in Israel within EPC and defense-related services. That sounds like a live operating base. But once the line is broken down, the structure is much less stable. The year was built mainly on the wartime jump in defense services, on one EPC project that has already been completed, and on the delivery of an AirSmart system under an older contract. It was not built on a broad customer spread, a deep order book, or a fresh multi-customer AirSmart sales cycle.
So 2025 did prove that the company can generate revenue. It did not yet prove that this revenue has turned into a broad, visible, and repeatable base.
That chart is the core of the story. In 2024 the company benefited from a one-off NIS 4.7 million component following the termination of the IEC agreement. In 2025 that item disappeared, but the gap was not closed through a broad civilian AirSmart rebound. It was closed mostly through another NIS 2.334 million of defense revenue and through NIS 2.195 million of management and setup services. In other words, the company did replace the old one-off, but not in a way that removes the repeatability question. It simply changed the source of fragility.
90% Of Revenue Came From Two Customers
The customer table in section 18.1 is the most important document for this follow-up. Formally, the company says it does not depend on one specific customer as of the report date. Economically, the picture is very different. In 2025 one customer, Salman Veheba Defense Industry, accounted for NIS 8.794 million, or 72% of total revenue. Another customer, Kibbutz Yahal, accounted for NIS 2.195 million, or another 18%. Together that is NIS 10.989 million, just above 90% of the entire year's revenue.
That is not a side note. It means the company did not leave 2025 with a more diversified revenue base than it had in 2024. It simply changed the identity of the exceptional component. In 2024 the two dominant items were IEC and the main defense customer, together about 79% of revenue. In 2025 IEC disappeared, but two other customers took almost the whole line.
The identity of the defense customer matters for another reason. According to the business description, the company works in this area mainly as a subcontractor to a service supplier of the Ministry of Defense, providing services on point needs rather than through long-duration contracts that would create strong forward visibility. At the same time, the company states explicitly that defense services increased from the beginning of the war, and that the continuation of the ceasefire or the end of the war may materially hurt revenue from this activity.
That makes the 72% mix very strong in the present, but weak as a run-rate assumption. It proves there is an engine. It does not prove that the 2025 pace can simply be copied into 2026.
The Non-Defense Layers Are Already Rolling Off
If the defense layer is put aside for a moment, the civilian side of 2025 still looks thin. Kibbutz Yahal's management and setup services did contribute NIS 2.195 million, but Note 22.A.7 says the work was completed during the first half of 2025. So this is revenue that proves billing ability, but not a year-end base that remained open.
The same logic applies to the AirSmart line. Note 22.A.5 shows that the Yafora system was installed already in 2024, and only the final sealing processes were completed in 2025. That is why the group recognized roughly NIS 1.1 million in 2025 on delivery of that system. This is almost the entire installation line of the year, NIS 1.092 million. In plain terms, the AirSmart revenue line in 2025 looks more like the closeout of an existing contract than the start of a fresh sales cadence.
After that, maintenance and other revenue was only NIS 110 thousand. That is not a stabilizing service base. It is immaterial relative to the overall revenue line.
| 2025 revenue component | Amount (NIS m) | What it does prove | Why it is not yet a clean recurring base |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defense services | 8.794 | The company can monetize engineering capabilities quickly | Management itself links a material part of this line to the war, and says the pace may weaken if the ceasefire continues or the war ends |
| Management and setup services | 2.195 | The company can bill a civilian customer for EPC work | This line rests on Kibbutz Yahal, and the work was already completed in the first half of 2025 |
| AirSmart installations | 1.092 | AirSmart can still generate recognized revenue | Most of the line rests on the delivery of the Yafora system under an older contract, not on a new multi-customer sales run-rate |
| Maintenance and other | 0.110 | A post-delivery service layer exists | At this size, it still does not act as a revenue stabilizer |
That table sharpens the right question. Not whether the company sold something civilian, but whether the civilian components sold in 2025 were still open going into the next year. By the end of the report, the answer is mostly no.
Backlog Does Not Rescue The Reading
One might expect the backlog to provide at least some forward cushion. In practice, the picture there is also limited. At both December 31, 2025 and the report publication date, the backlog stood at only NIS 806 thousand. Of that, NIS 337 thousand is expected in the first quarter of 2026, NIS 224 thousand in the second quarter, NIS 8 thousand in the third quarter, NIS 94 thousand in the fourth quarter, NIS 115 thousand in 2027, and only NIS 8 thousand in 2028.
Precision matters here. The reported backlog does not include defense orders that are still going through approval stages, even if the company has already started providing services. It also does not include OpEx-style projects where collection depends on the actual savings delivered. So backlog does not represent all potential activity.
But that does not solve the repeatability problem. It only defines it more accurately. If defense revenue stays outside backlog because it is short-cycle and dependent on approvals and point orders, then the report also offers weaker contractual visibility into the future revenue base. There is clearly an operating engine here, but there is not yet a broad contractual layer that replaces concentration with visibility.
The gap between NIS 12.191 million of revenue recognized in 2025 and only NIS 806 thousand of reported backlog at year-end says something simple: most of the year's revenue did not rest on a deep order book carried forward into the next periods. It rested on work that entered and was consumed during the year itself.
So How Much Of 2025 Is Actually Repeatable
The annual report supports three separate conclusions, not one. First, Airengy does have a real revenue engine in Israel. Defense services and EPC work prove that the company can sell engineering capability, not only future technology. Second, the NIS 12.2 million recorded in 2025 should not be treated as a clean recurring base. Too much of the year depends on defense work that management itself links to wartime conditions, on the Kibbutz Yahal job that is already finished, and on late recognition from the Yafora system under an older contract. Third, the reported backlog is still too small and too narrow to close that gap.
So the right reading of 2025 is not "a new recurring base has been built." The right reading is "the company managed to replace IEC's one-off component with more genuine operating revenue, but that revenue is still highly concentrated, still thin outside defense, and still not locked in forward."
What can improve revenue quality in the next reports? Three things. First, defense activity has to hold at a reasonable level even if wartime intensity fades. Second, the company needs more than one civilian EPC project so that Kibbutz Yahal does not remain a single exception. Third, AirSmart needs to show new installations rather than mostly delayed revenue recognition from older projects.
Until that happens, 2025 is proof of activity. It is not yet proof of repeatability.
Disclosure: Deep TASE analyses are general informational, research, and commentary content only. They do not constitute investment advice, investment marketing, a recommendation, or an offer to buy, sell, or hold any security, and are not tailored to any reader's personal circumstances.
The author, site owner, or related parties may hold, buy, sell, or otherwise trade securities or financial instruments related to the companies discussed, before or after publication, without prior notice and without any obligation to update the analysis. Publication of an analysis should not be read as a statement that any position does or does not exist.
The analysis may contain errors, omissions, or information that changes after publication. Readers should review official filings and primary sources before making decisions.