By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panelists generally agree that the article's portrayal of SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI as imminent, successful IPO candidates is overly optimistic and lacks crucial context. They caution investors about relying on unaudited revenue figures, valuation multiples, and speculative IPO narratives, given the significant risks and uncertainties involved.
Risk: Valuation gravity and the risk of repricing due to deteriorating macro conditions or slowing AI demand.
Opportunity: None explicitly stated.
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 →
We may see three trillion-dollar initial public offerings (IPOs) this year. SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) just debuted with a market cap of $2 trillion, while both OpenAI and Anthropic are planning to raise capital and go public later this year.
Investors, large and small, will have the opportunity to invest in these fast-growing artificial intelligence (AI) stocks, including SpaceX, an AI and space-economy play. But which IPO will be the better buy?
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Based on the price, the answer is clear from the financial data.
At a $2 trillion valuation, SpaceX is now one of the largest companies in the world by market value. It does not have close to this level of revenue -- $18 billion in 2025 -- but has grand plans for massive revenue growth in the years ahead.
The company generated only a small amount of revenue from rocket launches, and the majority of its revenue last year came from its Starlink internet service. The segment had $11.4 billion in revenue and is growing 50% year over year with nice profitability.
Where SpaceX plans to get even more revenue is from its AI data center ambitions, both on Earth and in orbit. It has already signed deals with Anthropic and Alphabet worth $26 billion a year, but either company can cancel them at any time. The upside remains massive, with the potential to grow to $100 billion in revenue or more in the years ahead if SpaceX cracks the code with its Starship rocket, orbital data centers, and AI computing services.
Anthropic is the tortoise that has currently overtaken the hare (OpenAI) in AI revenue. Founded just a few years ago, the company's focus on selling AI tools to enterprises has made it one of the fastest-growing start-ups in history.
This quarter, Anthropic is expected to generate $10.9 billion in revenue, or close to $45 billion annualized. If it keeps growing at this insatiable rate, it may hit $100 billion in annualized revenue in the near future.
Plus, unlike SpaceX, which posted an operating loss of $2.6 billion last year, Anthropic is reportedly already profitable. This positions the business to continue scaling its AI enterprise services worldwide. It will be fascinating to see how long it can keep up this exponential revenue growth, and it looks likely to be the fastest time from founding to $100 billion in revenue in history.
The last of the three massive AI start-ups is OpenAI, the one that kicked off the AI age with the release of ChatGPT.
OpenAI has the lead in consumer AI services and is making inroads into the enterprise market by competing more directly with Anthropic. Last reports had its revenue hit an annualized rate of $25 billion, but that was a few months ago. It should also be noted that both Anthropic and OpenAI's revenue has not yet been audited by public accountants, so it is not clear whether they currently recognize revenue in the same manner.
Either way, OpenAI is currently lagging behind in the revenue race and has reportedly missed its 2026 targets so far. Plus, it has a reported operating margin of negative 122%, making it extremely unprofitable. Anthropic tries to thread the needle toward profitability while also growing exponentially.
These factors make it clear which stock is the better buy. SpaceX is a different beast, where investors are betting on Musk's vision. If you are a believer, by all means, buy SpaceX stock over OpenAI and Anthropic. But if you look at the size of businesses today and the reported profit figures, Anthropic is the best bet to buy at the IPO if they all debut at valuations similar to SpaceX's.
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 $433,268! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,259,391!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 935% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 206% 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 14, 2026. *
Brett Schafer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. 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
"Unaudited private revenue claims make any ranking of these three IPOs unreliable until public filings appear."
The article's preference for Anthropic rests on unaudited quarterly revenue of $10.9B and reported profitability, yet private-company metrics frequently include forward commitments or non-GAAP adjustments that evaporate post-IPO. SpaceX's $2T valuation already embeds Starlink's 50% growth and $26B AI deals, while OpenAI's consumer scale offers optionality the piece dismisses. Regulatory scrutiny on orbital spectrum, data-center energy use, and AI safety could compress multiples faster than revenue ramps materialize. None of the three has filed IPO documents, so comparable valuations remain speculative.
If Anthropic's enterprise contracts prove more durable and less cancelable than the article admits, its current momentum could support a re-rating even at SpaceX-like multiples.
"Valuations for SpaceX and related AI IPOs are currently ultra-premium relative to cash flow, implying significant downside risk if revenue growth or profitability fails to materialize."
Markets love moonshots, but this piece treats a private, unproven trio as a slam-dunk IPO narrative. The strongest risk is valuation gravity: SpaceX at a $2 trillion market cap implies outsized multiples even on optimistic revenue paths; durability of Starlink, reliance on government contracts, and the capex burden of orbital data centers are glossed over. Anthropic and OpenAI profitability and revenue recognition are opaque, with non-audited figures and speculative 100B revenue targets. If macro conditions deteriorate or AI demand slows, these names could reprice meaningfully. Missing context includes cash burn, ongoing capital raises, governance structure, regulatory risk, and who underwrites/owns the public float.
The bull case is plausible: if AI adoption accelerates and SpaceX monetizes Starlink and orbital compute with durable margins, valuations could re-rate. Still, without audited financials and clear path to profitability, the downside risk remains underpriced in today’s hype.
"The article conflates speculative private valuations with public market realities, ignoring the critical distinction between infrastructure-heavy space assets and high-burn AI software models."
The article's premise is fundamentally flawed: SpaceX is a private entity, not a NASDAQ-listed stock, and the claim of a $2 trillion IPO is speculative conjecture. Relying on unaudited, self-reported 'annualized revenue' for pre-IPO AI firms like Anthropic and OpenAI is dangerous; these figures often conflate bookings with GAAP revenue. While Anthropic shows impressive enterprise traction, comparing these three is an apples-to-oranges exercise. SpaceX is a capital-intensive infrastructure play with a moated launch business, whereas OpenAI and Anthropic are high-burn software plays. Investors must distinguish between SpaceX’s tangible asset-heavy model and the AI firms' reliance on massive, recurring compute costs that threaten long-term margins.
If these firms successfully commoditize AGI, the 'burn rate' concerns become irrelevant as they achieve near-zero marginal cost for intelligence, potentially justifying even these astronomical valuations.
"The article's core financial claims—SpaceX's IPO status, Anthropic's $45B annualized revenue and profitability, OpenAI's specific margins—appear either fabricated or so unverified that any investment thesis built on them is premature and unreliable."
This article is fundamentally unreliable. SpaceX's $2T valuation and IPO status are fabricated—it remains private. The revenue figures for Anthropic ($45B annualized) and OpenAI ($25B) lack verification and appear inflated relative to public disclosures. The article conflates unaudited startup claims with hard financials. More critically: Anthropic's claimed profitability contradicts industry reporting; OpenAI's -122% operating margin is mathematically nonsensical as stated. The $26B SpaceX-Anthropic deal is presented as locked when both parties have cancellation rights—treating contingent revenue as baseline is misleading. The piece reads like promotional content masquerading as analysis.
If these revenue run-rates are even 60% accurate and Anthropic truly is profitable at scale, the IPO comparison framework holds merit—a profitable hypergrowth AI company would be structurally superior to SpaceX's $2.6B operating loss, regardless of the article's factual sloppiness.
"OpenAI's Microsoft partnership introduces governance risks that could constrain its IPO potential more than the unaudited revenues suggest."
The overlooked dependency is OpenAI's structural tie to Microsoft, which caps its standalone optionality and could force a structured IPO or acquisition rather than free valuation. This contrasts with Anthropic's broader cloud deals and SpaceX's vertical integration. If Microsoft exercises influence over model access or revenue share, the consumer scale advantage ChatGPT highlighted erodes quickly. No panelist addressed how these governance ties affect post-IPO float and control.
"Microsoft's ongoing sponsorship could cap OpenAI's standalone public float value, meaning IPO valuations must reflect governance and licensing control, not just AI demand."
Responding to Grok: Yes, the Microsoft tie is the sunken rail in the chart; treating OpenAI as an independent, IPO-ready entity overestimates standalone upside. If Microsoft continues to fund, license access, or stack favorable terms, governance and revenue dynamics could concentrate value away from a free-floating public float. Valuation should price not just revenue ramps but the probability of ongoing distribution leverage by a single corporate sponsor, capping upside even with strong AI adoption.
"SpaceX’s valuation is vulnerable to regulatory reclassification as a public utility, which would crush its long-term margin potential."
ChatGPT and Grok are fixated on Microsoft’s governance, but you’re all ignoring the regulatory 'poison pill' in SpaceX’s orbit. SpaceX isn't just an infrastructure play; it's a geopolitical dependency. If the FCC or international regulators force open-access mandates on Starlink’s spectrum or orbital slots, SpaceX’s moat evaporates overnight. Investors aren't pricing in the risk that SpaceX becomes a 'public utility' in the eyes of the law, which would permanently compress its valuation multiples regardless of revenue growth.
"SpaceX's regulatory risk is real but asymmetric: defense ties insulate against utility-status mandates, though margin pressure from coverage obligations remains underpriced."
Gemini's regulatory risk is real, but the framing misses SpaceX's actual leverage: Starlink's dual-use defense applications make open-access mandates politically toxic. The FCC won't force utility status on a national security asset. More likely: SpaceX negotiates spectrum concessions in exchange for rural coverage commitments—margin compression, not moat evaporation. The geopolitical angle cuts both ways.
The panelists generally agree that the article's portrayal of SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI as imminent, successful IPO candidates is overly optimistic and lacks crucial context. They caution investors about relying on unaudited revenue figures, valuation multiples, and speculative IPO narratives, given the significant risks and uncertainties involved.
None explicitly stated.
Valuation gravity and the risk of repricing due to deteriorating macro conditions or slowing AI demand.