Waymo May Exit Uber Deal, Shares Hit 52-Week Low

NEW YORK, July 25 -

Waymo is reportedly exploring an end to its partnership with Uber Technologies as robotaxi competition between the two companies intensifies, according to multiple reports published Friday including the Financial Times and Seeking Alpha. The potential split would strip Uber of a key narrative pillar - its claim to autonomous vehicle distribution relevance - and shares slid through the 52-week low even as at least one large holder placed a significant bet in the opposite direction earlier this month.

The Narrative That Got Repriced

Uber's strategic relationship with Waymo served a specific function: it let the company argue it did not need to win the autonomous vehicle race to profit from one. If Waymo's robotaxis needed human-managed supply networks, dispatch infrastructure, and rider relationships, Uber was the logical distribution layer. That argument is now in question.

Reports from the Financial Times, Seeking Alpha, TipRanks, and Investing.com described Waymo as actively exploring an exit as the two companies' competitive interests diverge. Waymo, backed by Alphabet, has expanded its driverless service across San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Austin - markets where it competes directly with Uber for riders. A partnership that once looked mutually beneficial increasingly resembles Waymo offering market intelligence to a rival.

Already Through the Floor

Investing.com reported UBER hit a 52-week low of $67.15 Friday morning. By data retrieval, shares sat at $65.94 - meaning the "52-week low" headline was outdated within hours of being written. The stock could not hold even that level, signaling how the market prices the risk of a permanent Waymo exit.

At $65.94, Uber trades at 14.8x forward earnings on a business generating $53.69 billion in trailing revenue, up 14.5% year-over-year, with free cash flow of $6.54 billion. The fundamentals have not changed this week. The story has.

The Counter-Bet in the SEC Filings

While sentiment turned negative, SEC filings from early July show a different posture from at least one large holder. A 10% beneficial owner - identified in filings as "Technologies, Inc Uber" - purchased 800,000 shares for $20 million on July 2. The same entity converted a combined 10.67 million shares from another instrument class into common shares across June 30 and July 2, a significant shift toward equity exposure timed just before this week's selloff.

Separate filings show that on July 16, CFO Balaji Krishnamurthy, Andrew Macdonald, Tony West, Jill Hazelbaker, and Glen Ceremony each had shares withheld for taxes in connection with RSU vesting at $74.04 per share. Those are mechanical events tied to vesting schedules, not expressions of management conviction either way.

The July 16 Question

One item that warrants attention independent of the Waymo news: an 8-K filed July 16 disclosed that Uber entered into a Material Definitive Agreement and created a Material Direct Financial Obligation. The filing does not elaborate beyond the regulatory checkbox language. Adding a material debt obligation while shares slide toward new lows is the kind of disclosure that deserves more scrutiny than it has received. Whatever the obligation entails, it represents a new claim on the free cash flow that bulls cite as a valuation floor.

What Changes the Thesis

The bearish case rests on uncertainty, not deteriorating fundamentals. FCF of $6.54 billion is real. The 14.8x forward multiple is not punishing. An analyst consensus of $104.10 implies the market has overreacted sharply. Those targets may be correct over a multi-year horizon, but analyst targets do not carry catalyst timelines attached.

Uber also holds a 19.5% stake in Delivery Hero, making Uber Delivery Hero's largest shareholder - an asset that adds complexity to any sum-of-parts analysis but does nothing to resolve the robotaxi narrative problem playing out this week.

Three things to watch: whether Uber or Waymo makes the partnership status explicit rather than leaving it in "reportedly exploring" territory; what the July 16 material financial obligation turns out to be as details surface; and how management frames AV strategy on the next earnings call without Waymo as the anchor example. Until any of those clarify, the uncertainty premium on the stock is hard to argue away.

Run the free Uber Technologies, Inc. deep-dive →

Basis Report does not hold positions in securities discussed. This is not investment advice.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will Waymo end its partnership with Uber?

Reports from the Financial Times, Seeking Alpha, TipRanks, and Investing.com published July 25, 2026 indicate Waymo is exploring ending the partnership as the two companies' robotaxi interests increasingly diverge. Neither company has made an official announcement confirming a split as of the date of this article.

Why did Uber stock hit a 52-week low?

Uber shares fell to a reported 52-week low of $67.15 Friday before declining further to $65.94, driven by uncertainty over the Waymo partnership and what losing that relationship would mean for Uber's autonomous vehicle distribution narrative. The selloff reflects investors repricing Uber's AV optionality story.

What are Uber's fundamentals at current prices?

Uber's trailing-twelve-month revenue stands at $53.69 billion, up 14.5% year-over-year, with free cash flow of $6.54 billion. At $65.94, the stock trades at 14.8x forward earnings, well below the analyst consensus price target of $104.10.

Who is buying Uber stock during the selloff?

SEC filings show a 10% beneficial owner identified as "Technologies, Inc Uber" purchased 800,000 shares for $20 million on July 2, 2026. The same entity converted a combined 10.67 million shares from another instrument class into common shares across June 30 and July 2, increasing equity exposure just before the selloff.

What did Uber's July 16 8-K disclose?

Uber filed an 8-K on July 16, 2026 disclosing entry into a Material Definitive Agreement and the creation of a Material Direct Financial Obligation. The filing does not provide details beyond standard regulatory disclosures, leaving the specific nature and size of the new obligation unclear.