The AI Capex Cash Conversion Index asks a harder question than how much companies plan to spend: who has made a firm commitment, who pays before delivery, whether pricing is protected, and who absorbs execution risk?
AI infrastructure is usually narrated through capital expenditure. Hyperscalers announce larger budgets; chip companies secure more supply; utilities, equipment manufacturers, contractors, and data-center landlords report expanding pipelines. The headline number is treated as evidence of demand.
But capex is not demand. Capex is capital placed at risk in anticipation of demand. The quality of that risk depends on a second layer of questions: Is the customer commitment cancellable? How long does it last? Has cash arrived before delivery? Can price move with input costs? Does the supplier carry a fixed-price obligation, a credit backstop, a construction deadline, or a noncancelable capacity commitment?
The AI Capex Cash Conversion Index, or ACCI, is an evidence-first attempt to make that layer visible. Version 0.1 compares eight companies located at different points in the AI infrastructure stack: GE Vernova, Digital Realty, Quanta Services, Eaton, Alphabet, Vertiv, Intel, and NVIDIA.
The index is not a valuation model, an earnings forecast, or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. It measures the strength of publicly disclosed evidence that an AI-capex narrative is being translated into firm contracts, advance customer funding, protected economics, and manageable delivery risk.
Reading rules
What this index refuses to do
First, it does not call a pipeline revenue. Backlog is treated as firm only when the company defines it as a contractual commitment or remaining performance obligation and explains cancellation treatment.
Second, it does not call every deferred-revenue balance a cash prepayment. When the filing does not establish cash receipt, the balance is labeled a contract-liability proxy.
Third, it does not compare a chip designer's gross margin mechanically with a construction contractor's gross margin or a real-estate company's cap rate. Margin evidence is assessed within the economics of the business model and every substitute is named.
Fourth, it does not let property-and-equipment capex stand in for total capital risk. Noncancelable supply, manufacturing, capacity, power, and credit-backstop commitments belong on the liability side of the conversion question.
Finally, it does not mistake missing disclosure for proof of weak demand. Missing disclosure lowers confidence and caps the relevant score. It creates a diligence question.
The first non-consensus conclusion is not that the highest-scoring company is the best AI investment. It is that the infrastructure stack contains different regimes of risk transfer.
Some companies receive deposits before building. Some lock in long-duration rent. Some secure capacity far ahead of a disclosed customer commitment. Some operate with exceptional margins but provide limited visibility into contract duration and price. The capex headline compresses all of these regimes into one number.
The more useful research question is where capital becomes contract-backed cash—and where the balance sheet is still carrying the future on behalf of the customer.
Research commentary only. Provisional evidence-based scores as of July 24, 2026. Nothing on this page is investment, legal, tax, or financial advice. Company names and tickers are used for research identification; W-Axis Lab is not affiliated with the companies discussed.