By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel's net takeaway is that while SpaceX's long-term potential is significant, especially with Starlink and Starship, the company faces substantial near-term cash burn and capex intensity. Its valuation hinges on durable, controllable cash flow that is not yet visible.
Risk: Heavy capex before meaningful EBITDA, compressing multiples long before a credible earnings inflection.
Opportunity: Starlink's accelerating cash flow and potential global rollout, along with Starship's scalable satellite deployment.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Space Exploration Technologies (NASDAQ: SPCX) -- or SpaceX -- has rocketed higher since its debut, closing in on a $3 trillion market capitalization. But let's be real: The stock is largely being pushed higher by its low float. The reality is that this company generated under $19 billion in revenue last year, and grew its sales by only 15% in the first quarter.
Elon Musk has predicted $1 trillion in revenue by 2030, but he has a long history of overly optimistic forecasts, and the chances of the company coming anywhere close to that number are slim. There are major technical hurdles that need to be overcome to have data centers in space, and no one can be certain this is a good business (it certainly would be heavy on capital expenditures), let alone one that is right around the corner.
Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now, when you join Stock Advisor. See the stocks »
Against that backdrop, let's look at three trillion-dollar stocks that look like better buys.
While SpaceX's valuation is based on moonshot bets, Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) is the dominant player in artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure. It trades at a forward price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) of just 16 and grew its revenue by an 85% in the first quarter to $81.6 billion.
Its adjusted quarterly profits of $45.5 billion were nearly 2.5 times SpaceX's 2025 revenue. These are two companies that should not be in the same orbit.
Nvidia maintains a wide moat in AI model training with its graphics processing units (GPUs) due largely to its CUDA software platform, which is where most foundational AI has been written. However, it also has a world-class networking portfolio, and its deal with Groq positions it well for the AI inference market. It also has a big opportunity in agentic AI with its central processing units.
Overall, Nvidia is a top AI stock and one deserving of its current market cap. It should have plenty of upside, given its valuation and growth prospects.
Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) may not be as exciting and innovative as it has been in the past during the days of Steve Jobs, but one thing is certain: It has one of the most proven business models. That should be worth much more than an unproven business model in outer space.
The company's strength lies in its closed-wall ecosystem. Apple has managed to become a luxury electronics brand whose products work seamlessly with one another, allowing it to capture the high end of the smartphone market.
These devices have pretty predictable replacement cycles, helping create a steady stream of hardware revenue. However, the beauty of the business is that once consumers buy an iPhone, they are typically locked into its system, as it becomes difficult to switch with each photo, app purchase, and subscription bought.
This, in turn, feeds into its high-margin service business. It includes things like getting a percentage of the revenue from apps sold through its App Store, selling cloud storage, revenue sharing with Alphabet's Google Search, and getting a small cut every time someone uses Apple Pay. This makes it one of the best-compounding businesses out there and is why the company is so valuable.
While Musk has suggested SpaceX could hit $1 trillion in revenue in 2030, Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) is actually projected to reach this figure in 2028 and $1.3 trillion in revenue by 2030. Given that it generated $717 billion in revenue last year versus under $19 billion for SpaceX, its projections are much more realistic. Analysts, for their part, expect SpaceX to reach only $226 billion in revenue by 2030, and even that could be ambitious.
Amazon, meanwhile, is the market leader in e-commerce and cloud computing. While Musk is pursuing the robotics industry through Tesla, Amazon is the world's leading manufacturer and operator of robots, with more than 1 million in its fulfillment centers. This is helping drive down costs and create efficiencies, leading to strong operating leverage in its e-commerce business.
And while SpaceX is trying to become a leading AI company, Amazon already is one. Its Amazon Web Services is seeing accelerating revenue growth, and its custom chip business gives it a cost edge. The company also has its own space ambitions, looking to challenge SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet service with its own offerings, while the acquisition of Globalstar gave it important spectrum and direct-to-device capabilities.
Amazon is a great company with two proven and growing businesses and one that should be worth much more than SpaceX's moonshot bets, in my view.
Before you buy stock in Space Exploration Technologies, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Space Exploration Technologies wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $417,305! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,293,148!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 936% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 207% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of June 19, 2026. *
Geoffrey Seiler has positions in Alphabet and Amazon. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Nvidia, and Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"SpaceX’s optionality—especially Starlink monetization and defense-launch demand—could deliver a revenue trajectory that justifies a higher multiple than the article implies."
The pieceFrames SpaceX as a one-way lunar bet, but SpaceX’s optionality hinges on Starlink monetization and recurring government/defense launch demand, which could yield multi-year revenue growth beyond the 15% Q1 pace and drive margin improvement as capex intensity normalizes. If Starlink achieves meaningful ARPU growth and global penetration, and launch services win steady government/commercial payloads, the company could compound earnings in a way that justifies a higher multiple than implied by today’s hype. The risk remains: capex burn, regulatory/orbital competition, and execution risk in space infrastructure.
The Starlink monetization thesis is far from assured; ongoing capex and depreciation pressures, regulatory hurdles, and a still-unproven profit path for global broadband could keep cash flow fragile for years, even if revenues grow.
"The article’s reliance on outdated P/E ratios for Nvidia and a narrow focus on current revenue ignores the asymmetric upside of SpaceX’s launch cost dominance."
The article commits a category error by comparing a private, vertically integrated aerospace disruptor to mature, public mega-caps. While the valuation of SpaceX in secondary markets is sky-high, comparing its $19B revenue to Nvidia’s $81B quarterly revenue ignores the 'option value' of Starlink and Starship. Nvidia’s forward P/E of 16 cited here is factually disconnected from current market reality—it trades significantly higher—suggesting the analysis relies on stale or erroneous data. Apple’s 'safety' is a defensive play, but it lacks the explosive TAM (Total Addressable Market) expansion SpaceX offers. Amazon is the most logical comparison, yet the article underestimates the cost-advantage SpaceX gains by controlling its own launch cadence, which is a massive barrier to entry.
If SpaceX fails to achieve rapid, full reusability for Starship, its capital expenditure will cannibalize its cash flow, rendering the company a perpetual money pit rather than a trillion-dollar disruptor.
"SpaceX's valuation is irrational, but not because its revenue growth is implausible—because nobody can model its terminal margins or capex requirements, making the $3T price tag a pure liquidity bet on low float, not a fundamental call."
This article conflates valuation with investment merit. Yes, SpaceX's $3T market cap on $19B revenue (158x sales) is absurd relative to Nvidia's 16x forward P/E. But the comparison is fundamentally flawed: Nvidia is a mature cash-generative business; SpaceX is a pre-revenue-inflection infrastructure play. The article's core error is treating 2025 revenue as a stable baseline rather than a trough before Starshield, Starlink monetization, and launch cadence acceleration. Amazon's $1.3T revenue projection by 2030 is not comparable—it's already a $717B revenue machine. SpaceX's $226B analyst consensus by 2030 implies 34% CAGR from a much smaller base. That's not moonshot talk; it's plausible given launch manifest backlog.
SpaceX's capital intensity is genuinely unknowable—if full-stack space infrastructure requires $500B+ cumulative capex and generates 5% EBITDA margins, the NPV math collapses regardless of revenue growth. The article is right that Musk's track record on timelines is poor.
"Starlink cash flow plus unmatched launch costs give SpaceX a clearer path to scale than the article credits."
The article frames Nvidia, Apple, and Amazon as safer trillion-dollar plays versus SpaceX's speculative Starship and data-center ambitions. Yet it downplays Starlink's 4 million+ subscribers and accelerating cash flow, which already funds R&D without dilution. SpaceX's 15% Q1 growth on a $19B base still outpaces most aerospace peers, and reusable launch economics remain unmatched. The piece also ignores how quickly Starship could scale satellite deployment, potentially compressing timelines the author labels unrealistic. Nvidia's 16x forward P/E looks attractive only if AI capex sustains; SpaceX's private structure shields it from similar valuation swings.
Starship test failures or FCC spectrum fights could push any $1T revenue target past 2035, validating the article's skepticism more than current subscriber trends suggest.
"SpaceX's valuation is still anchored by uncertain, capex-heavy cash flows rather than proven profitability, so a 'Starlink option value' narrative alone shouldn't justify current multiples."
Gemini overemphasizes 'option value' and dismisses near-term cash burn. Starlink monetization remains unproven at scale, with ARPU upside hinging on regulatory access, spectrum, and global rollout. Even with Starship cadence, SpaceX faces years of heavy capex before any meaningful EBITDA, which could compress multiples long before a credible earnings inflection. The article's valuation gap isn't just about growth; it hinges on durable, controllable cash flow that's not yet visible.
"SpaceX's role as a critical national security asset creates a defensive floor for its valuation that traditional infrastructure analysis ignores."
Claude, you’re missing the geopolitical tail risk. SpaceX isn't just an infrastructure play; it's a sovereign asset for the U.S. government. Starshield’s integration into defense budgets effectively subsidizes the R&D burn you fear. This isn't a traditional 'NPV' calculation because the client base—the Pentagon—has an inelastic demand for orbital supremacy. While others debate ARPU and subscriber growth, the real floor for SpaceX is its status as a national security necessity, which mitigates the capex 'money pit' risk significantly.
"Geopolitical necessity doesn't eliminate capex burn; it just obscures who absorbs the loss."
Gemini's 'sovereign asset' framing is seductive but obscures a hard constraint: Pentagon budgets are zero-sum. Starshield revenue doesn't eliminate SpaceX's capex problem—it just shifts who pays. If Starship development requires $300B+ cumulative spend and Starshield covers only launch services, not R&D, the subsidy argument collapses. Defense budgets fund *operations*, not moonshots. This conflates geopolitical importance with financial de-risking.
"Defense contracts cover launches but leave Starship development capex largely unfunded by government."
Gemini's claim that Starshield acts as a reliable R&D subsidy ignores Claude's zero-sum budget constraint. Pentagon line items fund discrete payloads and launches, not the multi-year, multi-billion Starship reusability program. Any shortfall forces SpaceX to self-fund or slow cadence, directly pressuring the cash-flow floor from Starlink that Grok's opening take highlighted as already thin.
The panel's net takeaway is that while SpaceX's long-term potential is significant, especially with Starlink and Starship, the company faces substantial near-term cash burn and capex intensity. Its valuation hinges on durable, controllable cash flow that is not yet visible.
Starlink's accelerating cash flow and potential global rollout, along with Starship's scalable satellite deployment.
Heavy capex before meaningful EBITDA, compressing multiples long before a credible earnings inflection.