Prepared remarks
Hello, and welcome to today's Tyler Technologies Second Quarter 2026 Conference Call. Your host for today's call is Lynn Moore, Executive Chair, President and CEO of Tyler Technologies. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session; inquiries will follow at that time. In order to address everyone's questions and stay within the allotted time, please limit to one question and one follow-up. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded today, July 30, 2026. I would like to turn the call over to Hala Elsherbini, Tyler's Senior Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Thank you, and welcome to our call. With me today is Lynn Moore, Executive Chair, President and CEO; and Brian Miller, our Chief Financial Officer. In an effort to streamline our communications and provide timely context around our quarterly earnings release, we published our prepared remarks yesterday, shortly after our full quarterly results release to the news section of our Investor Relations website. We've also posted on the Investor Relations section of our website under the Financials tab a schedule with supplemental information. Lastly, on the Events & Presentations tab, we posted an earnings summary slide deck to supplement our prepared remarks. After I give the safe harbor statement, Lynn will have some opening remarks and will directly go to Q&A. During this conference call, management may make statements that provide information other than historical information and may include projections concerning the company's future prospects, revenues, expenses and profits. Such statements are considered forward-looking statements under the safe harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from these projections. We refer you to our Form 10-K and other SEC filings for more information on those risks. Lynn?
Thanks, Hala. As you can see, it was a very busy and exceptionally productive quarter for Tyler. We accomplished a great deal strategically, including our Investor Day where we detailed new higher Tyler 2030 targets, our convertible debt offering, which enhanced our financial flexibility, significant share repurchases, reflecting confidence in our long-term growth and the acquisition of For the Record, which strengthens our leadership position in the courts and justice market, all while continuing to deliver strong execution across the business. Operationally, we delivered another strong quarter, highlighted by 21.7% SaaS revenue growth, record SaaS bookings, record total bookings and record second quarter free cash flow. Public sector demand remains healthy, supported by ongoing modernization priorities across government and continued investment in digital transformation, cybersecurity, operational efficiency and constituent engagement.
We also continue to see momentum in our transactions business, made meaningful progress with our cloud operations and advanced our AI strategy with growing client engagement and early customer adoption across the portfolio. Overall, we're very pleased with our first half performance and remain well positioned for the second half of 2026 and beyond. Simply put, we got a lot done this quarter and the progress we made reinforces our confidence in the opportunities ahead. We'll now take your questions.
Questions and answers
Your first question comes from the line of Kirk Materne with Evercore ISI.
Lynn, I realize you guys ran through a lot of the AI strategy at your recent Analyst Day. But I was just kind of curious, we've heard from some companies that AI sort of decisions are slowing down decisions in other parts of the business. And I was just kind of curious what you're seeing in your area. Have the broader discussions of AI slowed any decisions on flips or on some of your products? Or is it pretty much business as usual?
Yes. Thanks, Kirk. I'd say it's business as usual. As we talked about at Investor Day, our market is going to move a little bit slower, but there is a lot of excitement and energy around the products that we're starting to bring to market around AI. We're not seeing any meaningful impact, or any impact really, on the remainder of our core business.
And if I can just ask a quick follow-up for Brian. Brian, just on the margin front going into the back half of the year, anything we should be sort of aware of in terms of hiring plans or any sort of shift in how you guys are thinking about spending?
No, there's no real change to our spending outlook. Margin expectation obviously is that margins will continue to expand through the year. I think the midpoint of our guidance has somewhere around the 100 basis point margin expansion. There were a couple of one-time items in this quarter that pulled it down a bit, but we still have about the same outlook on growth and our hiring is right on plan and fairly limited in the second half of the year.
Your next question comes from the line of Matthew VanVliet with Cantor.
I guess looking at the progress for For the Record. Obviously, it's only been a couple of months, but just curious on how the interest there gives you confidence in both future M&A strategy but also just sort of your own AI roadmap as you were just talking about?
Yes, sure, Matt. Yes, we're still just as excited about For the Record as we were 2 months ago. As you know, we made our initial investment 11 years ago. They won a really big opportunity in Australia this quarter about a $1.6 million annual ARR. They also won, I think, 7 or 8 other deals in the quarter. So really, out of the gate, it's about what we expected. Like a lot of our acquisitions, we expect that over time we're going to help accelerate its growth. And that's the plan. I'm sorry, I don't remember the second part of your question.
Just how it impacts your AI strategy for both M&A and organic? I'm sorry, we talked over each other. Yes. Just how it impacts your AI strategy for both M&A and organic?
I think it just reinforces, one, our overall M&A strategy. And obviously, with changes that are going on in the market, that's one of the things we talk about: what is it that they can bring for AI? And on the flip side, we're probably scrutinizing acquisition candidates a little more closely in terms of whether or not AI is something that could displace those types of products versus others. But I would say it validates our approach. And again, we're as excited about For the Record as we've really been for many years.
And then, Brian, quickly following up. Could you just give us the organic revenue growth and bookings growth that you've historically even.
Yes. The organic revenue growth on a total revenue basis is about 2 points lower than the overall growth. And I don't have the organic bookings growth. But there was a pretty minimal contribution from the acquisitions this quarter, about 2 points on the organic revenue growth.
About $11 million from acquisition.
So the contribution for bookings was about $11 million from the acquired revenues.
Your next question comes from the line of Joshua Reilly with Needham.
If you look at some of the channel checks we did in the last quarter, some of the interesting feedback was customers on the ERP side seem more concerned about features and functionality, vendor reliability and AI product roadmap relative to necessarily having the lowest contract price. Is that consistent with what you're seeing in deals? And then along with that, do you think customers are less price sensitive than historically because you can drive a higher ROI to offset these higher contract costs?
Yes. Sure, Josh. I don't know that they're less price sensitive than they have been in the past. But I would agree with you about features and functionality and AI product roadmap. One of the things we've done on the ERP side is we've actually engaged our client base. We have an AI product focus group that meets monthly and we're working with our clients to make sure we're delivering the right AI value into their products. Features and functionality are always going to be king. That's one of the things that's always differentiated at Tyler: our 30-plus years of domain expertise, and that's going to continue to be the case in the future.
Your next question comes from the line of Alexei Gogolev with JPMorgan.
Thank you, and hello, everyone. Firstly, Brian, could I ask you about how you're thinking about gating specific capabilities, including AI, to cloud-only over the next year? And what principles determine whether something stays available on-prem versus becoming cloud exclusively?
Yes, Alexei, it's Lynn. You're right. We've outlined a lot of what we call incentives for clients to flip to the cloud, and one of those will be AI functionality that will be solely available in our cloud release. We recently sent messages to our client base around their need to get a path to the cloud and working with us and our salespeople to do it. There'll be a lot of incentives to do that. It's not just AI features, but cloud-only features, a cloud living release model that we talked about at Investor Day, the faster time to value. We're starting to work with clients on transitional pricing. So you're going to see us continue to ramp up what we traditionally call carrots, but I'd rather just call them incentives to moving to the cloud.
And another question about transactions. So excluding the Texas contract, transactions seem to be quite strong. Can you unpack what's driving the improvement? Is it volumes, mix or new logos? And how do you expect the mix shift towards software-tied transactions streams to evolve through the second half of the year?
Yes. It's really all three. You're right. Excluding Texas, our transaction revenues have grown about 10%. It's really from higher volumes—we are continuing to see that. We've talked about how we work with our clients to drive greater adoption—it's from new names, so sales continue to be very active in terms of bundling transaction services with both new sales and driving it back into our installed software base. And then the third part is, as you noted, providing software under a transaction-based arrangement. Those don't have as much impact on the second half of the year. We've seen ongoing impact from the California deal we did some time back. I think it's interesting that both last quarter and this quarter, the biggest software deals of the quarter were transaction-based. And so they're not showing up in the SaaS bookings, but they will show up in transaction revenues. But the largest actual software deal in terms of full ARR at full adoption rate was a statewide deal again this quarter as it was last quarter for our digital motor vehicle titling and electronic lien solution.
Your next question comes from the line of Terrell Tillman with Truist Securities.
Kind of building on that last question on the transaction deal that's a $10 million ARR deal. I'm curious, was that early on in the opportunity looking like it could be a transaction-funded deal or was it looking like a SaaS deal? And kind of the follow-up: could you all maybe do sales enablement work where you actually lead faster with transaction-funded opportunities and maybe that moves the deals along faster? Maybe it's not that simple. And then I had a follow-up.
Yes. I think that deal, as with the one last quarter in that digital motor vehicle titling deal, my understanding is that that was expected to be a transaction-funded deal throughout the process. That is one of those areas we've now, with our partner Champ, done those types of DMV deals in several states now. And that lends itself well to the transaction-funded model because it has a revenue stream or a charge to the citizen that accompanies that transaction. So those things don't lend themselves to every type of software deal but there certainly are those where it does, and we do use that to our advantage—being able to provide those transaction services, the payment capabilities and fund it with that transaction model that takes away the pressure of budgets because it doesn't have to have appropriated funds to pay for it. And so we use that to our advantage when it fits the transaction type perfectly.
I think if there are deals where the citizens are involved in interacting with the government—like digital titling, outdoors as Lynn said—those lend themselves to transaction-funded models. Our traditional business probably not so much.
Okay. Got it. And then it's always good to see the AI-driven deal kind of commentary in the slides. I'm curious, as it stands right now looking out over the next couple of quarters, what seems more impactful: document automation, priority-based budgeting or the resident AI assistant?
Terry, I'm not sure I would prioritize. I think the interest across all three are pretty high, and we're continuing to release new AI into the market as well. You're going to see an increase of that really starting next year and revenues probably start picking up in the latter part of next year. The excitement around all three is high, but for different reasons. We're getting a lot of traction right now out of document automation, a lot of traction on the resident AI assistant, and priority-based budgeting we've had in the bag for a couple of years now—it's out there and proven in the market. As the other solutions continue to be proven in the market—and as we talked about at Investor Day, trust and provability is really important in this segment—you'll continue to see more traction and excitement.
Your next question comes from the line of Parker Lane with Stifel.
Lynn, in the prepared remarks, you called out some investments in AI-enabled sales tools to improve the go-to-market function. I was wondering if you can go a layer deeper and help us understand exactly what you're bringing in here and how that's changing the way that you all approach this end market today.
Yes. I don't want to go too deep for competitive reasons, but we've been utilizing AI in sales for some period of time. There's obviously—everything we do is in the public domain, everything is out there. Being able to use AI to understand client demand, understand what's going on at city council meetings, to understand their specific needs to the extent that we don't have that already through our relationships, to understand competitive processes and what competitors are doing—there's just a lot that we're doing, and the results have been encouraging to see.
One of the things is the AI enablement in our CRM system and taking advantage of that—there's a wide variety of tools there.
Got it. Brian, a follow-up for you. Record second quarter free cash flow here. Anything one-time to call out about that performance that you saw here?
There's not anything necessarily one-time, but I think the biggest impact on the increase over last year was cash taxes. There was about $30 million less cash taxes this quarter than there was in the second quarter of last year, and that's primarily related to some of the impacts of the tax legislation.
Your next question comes from the line of Tamjid Chowdhury with Guggenheim.
I guess first one for Lynn. In the prepared remarks, you talked about the resident AI assistant now being adopted by eight states. What brings customers to the table to come to the table and say I want a solution like that? And then what is the typical ARR uplift for a solution like that once it's fully deployed in a state?
I think it's a couple of things that garner the interest. When you talk about AI solutions, this is an outcome-based solution—you're trying to ease the burden of day-to-day routine for state agencies and jurisdictions in serving their citizens. Our client base tends to be conservative and they watch what happens in other states; when things start working and they see measurable ROI outcomes, it drives demand. That's what we've seen with our resident AI assistant.
The ARR varies from state to state, but typically it's in the multiple millions of dollars.
Okay. Great. And then for Brian, a quick one for you. As you approach the second half of the year, conversions from on-prem will see some tough comps. Can you give us more color on the visibility that you have into the second half when it comes to conversions?
Yes. We've gotten away from commenting on that quarter-to-quarter. We have said that we expect the activity to continue to grow in general over the next three to four years and that we're on track to achieve converting 85% of our 2023 maintenance to the cloud by 2030. It can be lumpy quarter-to-quarter, especially based on larger customers, and there's a little less certainty around timing for those larger opportunities. So I'd say we're on track to achieve the long-term objectives and we're continuing to see those pick up. Lynn talked about some of the incentives now that we expect will help solidify that activity over the next couple of years.
Your next question comes from the line of Rob Oliver with Baird.
Two for me. Lynn, just first for you: on really strong performance on trailing 12-month ACV from conversions for you guys. I know you've talked a little bit about data preparedness that customers need to think about if they're going to have an AI future. Is that pulling you guys into the equation today? In other words, are you seeing today that AI is showing up in the rationale around those flips and potentially start to help accelerate those flips?
I don't know that, sitting here today, Rob, it's been a meaningful contributor. I do expect it to become more meaningful over the next 12 to 18 months as we put more AI agentic use cases in our flagship products and commercialize more AI. I think you're going to see that ramp up. As I mentioned earlier, we've got a whole program in place to start incentivizing the move a little faster, particularly now as our products move toward the cloud living model that we talked about at Investor Day. As our clients become better prepared I think you'll see that continue to increase, consistent with what we outlined at Investor Day.
Great. And then Brian, for you, just on the third-party payment processing headwind that you guys called out, how structural is that? Does it recur in '27? And how should we think about the kind of normalized incremental margin on SaaS once that noise clears?
That third-party payment headwind was pretty much isolated to last year where we saw outsized increases from some of our third-party payment processing partners. That seems to have played out after the first part of last year. So that headwind really isn't a big factor going forward. Last year in Q2 was sort of the peak of that.
Your next question comes from the line of Alex Zukin with Wolfe Research.
I guess, Brian, maybe the first one for you. Can you help investors understand a little bit of the SaaS revenue in the quarter? Were there some timing impacts that led to them being a bit less recognized in the quarter? And then is there confidence given it looks like first half SaaS bookings is a meaningful acceleration versus last year—when does that start to show up? Is that the confidence behind the reiterated sales revenue guidance?
As we've talked about, there is a lag from the time we sign something to the time those SaaS revenues start to show up in the income statement, and that's true both with new deals—which can be a quarter or two, but could be longer—and flips. There's also a lag there. So the accelerated bookings in the last two quarters don't have as much impact on the current quarter, or even the next quarter or two, as they do beyond that. That lag is something you have to keep in mind. I don't think there's anything particular around timing here. We always have deals that move around some; that's typical. Our outlook for the full year hasn't changed, and we don't give quarterly guidance. There's not any meaningful change to our outlook for the year.
Got it. And then maybe on the AI ACV contribution as a percentage of your new SaaS ACV this quarter—I think you called out new SaaS ACV growing about 22%. You talked about document automation attach continuing to be really healthy. Any sense for what that attach rate looks like on the installed base and how much should we think about that potentially being a tailwind to new SaaS ACV beyond this year?
As Lynn mentioned, it's beyond this year where we expect it to be meaningful. The direct AI stuff is still a very small percentage of total ACV. We expect that revenue contribution to be more meaningful 12 to 18 months down the road. It's certainly growing, but it's still a small percentage of new ACV.
Your next question comes from the line of Trevor Walsh with Citizens.
Brian, maybe to start with you a quick one. You made some comments around that $10 million transaction business or that deal with motor vehicle. Do you have a sense of the ramp on that $10 million annually number? And if so, how does that compare to other similarly sized deals?
The biggest difference between state to state is whether adoption is mandated initially or whether it starts out optional or voluntary. In the case of the state we signed this quarter, it is not yet mandated, so we expect it will start out at somewhere around a $2 million ARR run rate starting in early 2027, and then would ramp up to $10 million-plus as it becomes mandated. In the case of the state we signed last quarter, it has been mandated, so we expect that ramp up to start faster. I believe that one was closer to $20 million. It just depends on state policies and how they decide to govern that.
It's not too dissimilar from our e-filing business from 10–12 years ago—many counties started voluntary and then as jurisdictions went mandatory, you'll start to see those revenues pick up.
Got it. Super helpful color. And maybe just one quick follow-up. Lynn, you mentioned at Investor Day some of the sticks or disincentives around flipping to the cloud and you said you're mostly focusing on incentives now. Any initial feedback from customers around the more negative aspects or the stick pieces? How is the new order of getting people to move faster being received by the customer base?
Yes. Communication has gone out since Investor Day to our clients. It's really about—we want to be there and work with you on the plan that's going to get you to the cloud. We'd like for you to have a plan in place within a certain time period. We're still focusing mostly on incentives. We're not necessarily communicating what disincentives will be right now. The feedback we've got from a lot of clients—at Connect this past quarter, our client advisory board, our focus groups, and day-to-day relationships—is that some clients need help selling the move to the cloud internally. So we're working with them on the talking points to sell it internally. Disincentives will start to come out more over the next 12 to 24 months rather than being a focus today.
Your next question comes from the line of Allan Verkhovski with BTIG.
You mentioned in the prepared remarks how you are testing pricing models in the market with respect to monetizing AI. You went through different methods of monetization at Investor Day. Can you share what your latest learnings are coming out of the market on that front?
Right now the proof points are validating. When we think about how we price AI, there are three models. The first is embed or essentials—table stakes that improve our competitive position and win rates and may also allow us to increase annual rates as we bake more in. The second is subscription uplift, where we're bundling AI capabilities; we're seeing that being well received and are still testing pricing and viability. The third is outcome-based pricing—still early but being validated in the market. You're going to start seeing more meaningful revenues coming from AI in the second half of 2027 and ramping into 2028.
Perfect. And then internally regarding early productivity benefits across development, implementation and service delivery—can you expand on what you're seeing and how we should think about those benefits alongside your unchanged R&D guidance?
Some of it's still anecdotal. We're trying to tease everything out and make sure there's clear ROI before we invest too much internally. Anecdotally we've seen as much as a 30% increase in developer productivity. I don't know that that translates to developers being 30% more productive across the board; productivity gains mean we can get more done. In support and implementation we're looking at ways to shorten implementations, which shortens time to value and increases client satisfaction, which helps cross-sells and upsells. On the support side, we're looking at how clients can get answers faster. It's still early to quantify exact returns, but we're diligent to ensure AI investments have meaningful ROI.
Your next question comes from the line of Grayson on for Gabriela Borges with Goldman Sachs.
I wanted to start with the labor augmentation thesis discussed at Investor Day—AI expanding TAM into labor-related spending vs. traditional software budgets. I know it's early, but what evidence have you seen that customers are evaluating solutions through an ROI lens tied to labor rather than traditional software procurement? Are there specific workflows where that shift is materializing?
Good question. A couple of products—document automation and resident assistant—are being viewed specifically through the lens of the labor budget. One client said they could tap the labor budget to procure the product. At Investor Day we cited Tarrant County, which is a document automation product that went from about a $900,000 SaaS arrangement to about $1.3 million total ARR—so a significant increase. Resident assistant reduces calls and inquiries staff must handle. Public sector workforce is facing retirements and hiring challenges; tapping the labor budget is becoming more meaningful and is part of our playbook. It's early but getting traction.
Great. And in your prepared remarks, you highlighted 40-plus AP automation wins in the quarter. How should investors think about the economic implications for Tyler? Is this incremental software ARR, higher payments penetration, or a combination?
Yes—
It's a combination of both. AP automation, when added to ERP clients, provides a relatively small uplift in SaaS fees, but it is a SaaS fee uplift and it opens up additional opportunities to leverage payments tied to invoice processing. So it creates a new conversation and opportunity to bring in more transaction-based revenues associated with that automation.
Your next question comes from the line of Andrew Sherman with TD Cowen.
Lynn, how would you rank order product strength across the portfolio—ERP, public safety, financials and Courts & Justice? How is the pipeline building across those, and how do you drive cross-sell where big cities and counties might not have all of those core products?
When we talk about our Cornerstone products, we want to be #1 in the market with each of them. I wouldn't rank one over the other. You can look at market share—Courts is a place where we have a higher market share and fewer competitors; we dominate that market. ERP and public safety are more competitive markets but our competitive position is strong and continues to get stronger. We've made significant investments in ERP over the last 12 months. Public safety had some nice wins this quarter against key competitors. In general, our flagship products are very competitive in their markets.
Cross-sell is a key pillar of our growth. Especially in larger customers, very few have all our flagship products. We're doing a lot to create opportunities and make a more compelling story for why the next product should come from Tyler. Moving customers from two or three products to eight to ten products is a huge opportunity.
One of our biggest cross-sells of the quarter was out of our ERP division: we sold to the Mississippi Department of Health our enterprise permit and licensing enterprise health solution. It was a $700,000 ARR deal leveraged by our relationships. We've made great inroads with the State of Mississippi and we're looking to turn that into what we call Total Tyler state. That doesn't happen without relationships across our divisions.
That's great. One more follow-up: the Riverside public safety deal seemed like a big one—any way to ballpark size and state of the public safety market and budgets?
The public safety market is pretty healthy and budgets seem stable. Our competitiveness in public safety is strong. We won some nice deals this quarter against competitive firms. I don't have Riverside off the top of my head, but we won a nice deal in Santa Cruz, California, about a $660,000 ARR deal for RMS and enforcement mobile solutions. Overall, momentum and engagement in public safety are strong.
Your next question comes from the line of Michael Turrin with Wells Fargo Securities.
Appreciate you taking the questions. On the Q2 metrics, what stands out is the new SaaS ACV and flip ACV growth—how durable is that? Anything we should be mindful of regarding seasonality or the right way to think about those metrics going forward?
Those are really good growth numbers and both SaaS bookings and total bookings were all-time quarterly records—the highest quarter ever for those bookings. Last year's first two quarters were weaker booking quarters, so these are against somewhat easier comps, though the second quarter improved sequentially. The good bookings weren't from mega contracts but from many mid-sized deals and a handful of larger deals; the biggest deals were transaction-based and don't show up in the SaaS numbers. Pipeline strength in RFPs and demos point to continued good bookings for the rest of the year. Comps are a little harder in the second half, but underlying activity supports continued bookings.
Great. Just a follow-up, Brian: you've bought back more than 5.5% of shares outstanding year-to-date. How are you approaching buybacks from here in your capital allocation framework? What could lead you to hold cadence versus moderate?
Over the years priorities have evolved. Ten years ago the focus was internal investment; after NIC, priorities included debt repayment. Right now share repurchases are a higher priority based on confidence in our 2030 outlook, our free cash flow, and the valuation in the market. We believe it's a compelling time to buy. There have been periods in Tyler's history where we've gone hard at buybacks; today we see it as a good use of capital to reduce share count and maintain that reduced count going forward.
Your next question comes from the line of Jonathan Ho with William Blair.
You said in the prepared remarks you're embedding AI into workflows. Can you provide more color on what customers are looking for in terms of embedding and the opportunity to build AI functionality across the entire portfolio?
At a high level, we're automating routine work, reducing manual responses, helping clients make better decisions through data assistance, generative AI and predictive analysis—basically making day-to-day work go faster and compensating for lost labor. Examples include document automation, priority-based budgeting, AP automation, report writing assistance, geo-reconciliations, policy assistance, and permit review assistance. We're getting AI inside products and workflows to make clients more efficient.
In terms of embedded versus bolted on, clients want AI integrated and embedded in the system of record that's doing the work. That's a matter of trust—how data is handled and how models work—and they want that from the same provider as the system.
That makes sense. Regarding the spending environment, particularly as new state and local budgets start to unlock, any concerns on the macro, compliance-driven or grant-driven side?
We're not seeing any real change. Budgets are generally healthy and stable—consistent over the last several quarters. A year ago some decisions took longer; now we're seeing an uptick in decisions in areas like ERP. Overall demand environment is consistent.
Where customers see pressure is where ROI analysis becomes important—how technology can drive efficiencies. That also makes transaction-funded models attractive in certain areas where the system operates outside the budget through self-funded revenues.
Your next question comes from the line of Mark Schappel with Loop Capital.
Lynn, in the past you've discussed the goal of getting every client onto a single code stream for each product. Can you provide details on how far along you are and maybe which businesses are furthest along?
We talked at Investor Day about our cloud living initiative—which is getting everyone on a single stream with continuous improvement and delivery. Before that, clients need to be on a single current version. We're going to enroll cloud living pilots throughout 2027 and start to have clients referenceable in 2028. For version control, in Courts over the last three years we've gone from 89% of clients on legacy systems to only 7% today. Our enterprise ERP has about 85–90% on the current version—not necessarily cloud living yet—but getting clients current and then into cloud living is a goal that will drive higher retention, increased upsell and cross-sell. It's a bold vision and we'll continue to make gains year-over-year.
Your next question comes from the line of Clarke Jeffries with Piper Sandler.
I noticed another sizable city public safety flip. You made the comment at Analyst Day that public safety is nearly 100% going to cloud. What's the state of holdouts across products? Is the state team going to take on the largest core clients, or will they work jointly with Courts & Justice? And one follow-up.
I don't envision a separate state team taking over those relationships. Courts & Justice has strong, deep relationships and will continue to work them. Many clients watch what neighbors do; Idaho was an example that spurred more interest. Orlando was a nice SaaS flip for Public Safety—CAD, RMS and our newer emergency networking product from last year's acquisition. Public safety is moving to SaaS and we're one of the pure SaaS providers; many competitors are still lift-and-shift. I don't think there's a segment that's a big holdout; it's the same factors we've discussed over the last couple of years. With incentives and eventual disincentives, we'll reach the goals outlined at Investor Day.
Perfect. I saw For the Record win in Australia's federal courts. Any appetite to follow with other products internationally based on that presence? And is it an inside or field sales motion for international markets?
FTR is based in Australia and has history there. They'll continue to do things in Australia and some small international deals. It doesn't change our overall strategy—we have a lot of runway in the U.S. with cloud moves and AI rollout, so expanding other products internationally would be a distraction for now.
There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back to Lynn Moore for closing remarks.
Thanks, Maria, and thanks, everybody, for joining our call today. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Brian Miller or myself. Thanks again, and have a great day.
This concludes today's call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.