By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on Oracle's current valuation, citing massive capital expenditure (capex) leading to increased long-term liabilities and uncertain returns on infrastructure investments. The OpenAI partnership is seen as a potential risk rather than a significant opportunity.
Risk: Financing strain and covenant risk due to elevated rates and depressed free cash flow (FCF) conversion.
Opportunity: Potential premium pricing for high-end AI compute performance using proprietary interconnects (Gemini's RDMA moat argument).
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 →
It wasn't that long ago that Oracle (NYSE: ORCL) was a top tech stock benefiting from the hype around artificial intelligence (AI). But that excitement has quickly turned to concern about elevated spending on AI, high debt levels, and perhaps too much dependence on OpenAI. The result: a stock that's now lost roughly half its value in the past 12 months.
Oracle, however, remains a big name in the tech sector, and it still has plenty of growth opportunities stemming from AI. With it now down over 60% from its highs, is now a good time to buy the stock?
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 »
When Oracle reported its latest earnings numbers last month, the business showed strong growth on both its top and bottom lines. But the bigger issue for investors is what lies ahead for the business, and whether all the spending on AI will prove worth it, especially given that one of its key customers is OpenAI, whose future doesn't look all that solid these days as it struggles with profitability and growing competition.
For the fiscal year ending May 31, Oracle's capital expenditures totaled $55.7 billion, easily more than double what it spent a year ago -- $21.2 billion. It also reported long-term liabilities of $176.9 billion, up from $114.7 billion in the prior-year period. The company continues to invest heavily in AI cloud infrastructure, with it projecting to raise $40 billion for the current fiscal year, through a combination of debt and equity.
This aggressive spending on AI has been a concern in the tech sector lately, and it has weighed heavily on Oracle's stock, particularly after the company signed a $300 billion cloud deal with OpenAI last year.
There is a risk that Oracle's aggressive investments in AI simply won't pan out as expected. But if a stock is trading at a low enough price, it can sometimes be a calculated risk for investors. Right now, Oracle is trading at a forward price-to-earnings multiple below 16 (based on analyst expectations), which is far less than the S&P 500 average of 22. It's also trading around where it was three years ago.
For long-term investors, Oracle's stock could make for a compelling buying opportunity today. With so much bearishness priced in, it could be a good contrarian pick up given its reduced valuation. While there may be some short-term risk, this is still a top tech company that generates strong profit margins, which is why I wouldn't be surprised if it recovers in the long run.
Before you buy stock in Oracle, 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 Oracle 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 $371,842! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,244,783!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 900% — 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 July 20, 2026. *
David Jagielski, CPA has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Oracle. 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
"Oracle’s forward P/E looks cheap only if investors ignore that $95B+ cumulative capex over two years is being spent on infrastructure whose returns are hostage to OpenAI’s uncertain path to profitability."
The article frames ORCL’s 60% drawdown from highs as a valuation bargain at <16x forward P/E versus the S&P 500’s 22x, citing strong margins and AI tailwinds. However, it downplays that capex exploded to $55.7B last fiscal year (2.6× prior) and another $40B is planned, funded by $176.9B in long-term liabilities. Oracle’s $300B OpenAI cloud commitment ties its growth to a single loss-making partner facing regulatory and competitive pressure. The “contrarian buy” narrative therefore rests on the unproven assumption that these massive infra bets will generate incremental returns above Oracle’s cost of capital; history with hyperscaler capex cycles suggests payback periods can stretch years while debt service rises.
If OpenAI stabilizes, monetizes its models, and Oracle’s cloud revenue accelerates to 25%+ growth while capex moderates, the stock could easily re-rate to 22-24x forward earnings, delivering 50%+ upside from current levels—precisely the bullish case the article sketches but the market is currently refusing to price in.
"Oracle's low P/E is a value trap that fails to account for the long-term interest burden of its aggressive, debt-fueled infrastructure expansion."
The article's premise that Oracle (ORCL) is a 'bargain' based on a forward P/E of 16 is dangerously simplistic. It conflates traditional valuation metrics with a capital-intensive cloud build-out that is ballooning long-term liabilities to $176.9 billion. While the market is punishing the CAPEX surge, the real risk isn't just 'AI hype'—it's the potential for margin compression as Oracle battles hyperscalers like AWS and Azure in a commoditized infrastructure race. A 16x multiple looks cheap only if you ignore the massive interest expense servicing that debt load. Investors are pricing in a structural shift, not just a temporary dip, making the current valuation a value trap rather than a discount.
If Oracle successfully pivots to a high-margin sovereign cloud and AI-driven SaaS model, the current CAPEX will be viewed as a necessary moat-building exercise rather than a liability.
"Oracle's forward P/E looks cheap only if you ignore that normalized FCF per share is likely 15-20% lower than consensus models assume due to sustained elevated CapEx intensity."
The article frames Oracle as a 'bargain' based on a 16x forward P/E versus 22x S&P average, but this comparison obscures a critical issue: Oracle's CapEx trajectory is structurally different from its historical profile. The $55.7B spend (2.6x prior year) isn't temporary—management projects $40B annually going forward. That's roughly 8-9% of revenue as ongoing infrastructure burn. The real risk isn't valuation compression; it's that Oracle's FCF (free cash flow) is being cannibalized faster than earnings growth can offset it. The OpenAI dependency is real but overstated—it's one customer. The bigger question: does Oracle's cloud infrastructure ROI materialize in 18-24 months, or does this become a multi-year drag on returns?
If Oracle's AI infrastructure investments begin monetizing broadly across enterprise customers (not just OpenAI) by late 2025, the current CapEx-to-revenue ratio could normalize downward while revenue compounds at 15%+, making today's valuation a genuine steal.
"Oracle's AI investments risk creating only a bluff of upside unless near-term revenue/FCF growth materializes; without that, the low forward P/E won't justify the risk."
Oracle's stock has tumbled on AI spending fears, but the real stress test is whether the capex binge will ever translate into durable cloud- and data-services revenue with healthy margins. The article glosses over the drag from debt-financed spending: if $40B annual AI infra funding and long-term liabilities near $177B persist, incremental earnings power may disappoint. The OpenAI customer angle complicates defense: even if OpenAI is a revenue anchor, its profitability and cloud spend are uncertain in a competitive AI market dominated by Azure, AWS, and Google. The claimed $300B OpenAI deal appears dubious and, if inaccurate, undermines the credibility of the bull case. Valuation alone may not compensate for execution risk.
Counterpoint: Oracle has a defensible software moat and strong cash flow, which could support a meaningful re-rating even if AI ROI is slower than hoped.
"Persistent high capex plus elevated rates creates covenant and ROIC risks the panel has not fully quantified."
ChatGPT's $300B OpenAI commitment skepticism is fair but incomplete: the real unmentioned risk is covenant pressure on Oracle's $177B liabilities if rates stay elevated and FCF conversion stays below 60%. Hyperscaler history shows these infra cycles rarely deliver ROIC above WACC before year three; the article's bargain narrative assumes instant monetization that balance-sheet math contradicts.
"Oracle's specialized RDMA networking creates a performance moat that justifies higher CapEx and differentiates it from commoditized cloud providers."
Grok and Claude are missing the structural shift in Oracle's OCI (Oracle Cloud Infrastructure) architecture. Unlike AWS or Azure, Oracle is betting on specialized, high-performance RDMA networking that minimizes latency for massive training clusters. This isn't just 'commodity' infrastructure; it's a specific moat against the hyperscalers. If their proprietary interconnects prove superior for large language model training, the ROI won't come from generic cloud hosting, but from commanding a premium for high-end AI compute performance.
"Proprietary interconnect tech is defensible only if customers structurally can't replicate it elsewhere and willingly pay premium—both unproven."
Gemini's RDMA moat argument is testable but unproven. Oracle's networking advantage matters only if: (1) LLM training clusters actually demand it at scale, and (2) customers pay premium pricing rather than accept AWS/Azure latency trade-offs. Neither is guaranteed. The real problem: even if the tech works, hyperscalers can replicate it within 18 months. Grok's covenant risk on $177B debt at elevated rates is the harder constraint nobody's quantified—what FCF threshold triggers covenant pressure?
"RDMA moat won't save Oracle if premium demand and pricing don't materialize and the capex/debt cycle keeps FCF under pressure."
Gemini's RDMA moat idea is intriguing, but it's not a moat until customers actually choose Oracle for the premium performance at scale. Hyperscalers can replicate or undercut to win volume, and a single-architecture advantage won't guarantee ROIC > WACC given $177B of liabilities and 8-9% revenue spend. The bigger risk remains financing strain and covenant risk—capex will depress FCF for years unless enterprise demand proves durable at premium pricing.
The panel consensus is bearish on Oracle's current valuation, citing massive capital expenditure (capex) leading to increased long-term liabilities and uncertain returns on infrastructure investments. The OpenAI partnership is seen as a potential risk rather than a significant opportunity.
Potential premium pricing for high-end AI compute performance using proprietary interconnects (Gemini's RDMA moat argument).
Financing strain and covenant risk due to elevated rates and depressed free cash flow (FCF) conversion.