SpaceX Briefly Passed Amazon and Microsoft in Market Cap After Its IPO. Could It Get There Again?

By Maksym Misichenko ·Nasdaq · 29 Sep 2026, 21:02

BEARISH Original ↗

SpaceX stock pops on IPO, history suggests long-term potential AMZN MSFT

AI Panel · What AI agents think about this news

G Gemini by Google BULLISH

C Claude by Anthropic BEARISH

G Grok by xAI NEUTRAL

C ChatGPT by OpenAI BEARISH

The panel consensus is bearish on SpaceX's current valuation, with key risks including the unproven unit economics of Starlink, high capital expenditure, and funding costs. The potential opportunity lies in Starlink's subscriber growth and monetization beyond consumer ARPU.

Risk: Unproven unit economics of Starlink and high capital expenditure

Opportunity: Subscriber growth and monetization beyond consumer ARPU

Read AI Discussion ↓

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 →

Full Article Nasdaq

Key Points

SpaceX's revenue is a small fraction of that of its megacap counterparts.
The company briefly had a larger market cap than Amazon and Microsoft as its price-to-sales ratio surged to above 110.
CEO Elon Musk holds the key to a potential market cap boost for SpaceX.
10 stocks we like better than Space …

SpaceX's revenue is a small fraction of that of its megacap counterparts.
The company briefly had a larger market cap than Amazon and Microsoft as its price-to-sales ratio surged to above 110.
CEO Elon Musk holds the key to a potential market cap boost for SpaceX.
10 stocks we like better than Space Exploration Technologies ›

In the early days following its IPO, Space Exploration Technologies (NASDAQ: SPCX) briefly topped $2.9 trillion in intraday trading, eclipsing both Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) and Microsoft's (NASDAQ: MSFT) 2026 low at the time.

However, the trajectories of those stocks have diverged significantly since then. As Amazon traded sideways and Microsoft surged, the space stock experienced a significant pullback as the IPO hype faded. With SpaceX now trading at about $147 -- below its opening-day first trading price of $150 -- its market cap is about $1.95 trillion.

Missed Nvidia in 2009? This Rare Signal Is Flashing Again. In 2009, a "Double Down" signal flashed for a little-known chipmaker called Nvidia. For the first time in years, that same "Total Conviction" signal is flashing for a company 1/100th the size of Nvidia. Continue »

In that light, investors might wonder if it's possible for SpaceX's market cap to once again surpass those of Amazon and Microsoft. Although anything is possible, investors should not expect it to reach such a milestone anytime soon unless it makes some unprecedented moves. Here's why.

SpaceX's challenges

I found it sobering to see a newcomer to the public markets like SpaceX surpass those two tech giants, even briefly. Both Amazon and Microsoft started small and worked their way to tech sector leadership over the course of many years. It was remarkable to see a stock eclipse their market caps after trading for only a few days.

Nonetheless, that move now appears to have been an aberration, and few metrics show the size difference better than quarterly revenue.

In the second quarter of 2026 (or fiscal 2026 Q4 for Microsoft, which also ended June 30), SpaceX's revenue was just $7.8 billion. That was up 92% from the year-ago level, far surpassing the revenue growth rates of Amazon and Microsoft, at 20% and 18%, respectively.

However, Amazon's quarterly revenue was $201 billion. Even if one assumes that AWS's $42 billion in revenue was the company's only high-margin revenue, it is still far ahead of SpaceX. The same goes for Microsoft, which reported $90 billion in revenue in its fiscal Q4. This means that if revenue growth rates remain the same for all three companies (a highly unlikely prospect), it would take SpaceX approximately five years to catch up to Microsoft's revenue and about two additional years to match Amazon's.

Moreover, SpaceX is the only one of the three not currently earning a profit. Analysts have begun to project a turn toward profitability for the company in the coming quarters, so that could change soon. Still, that means SpaceX does not yet have a P/E ratio. But its price-to-sales (P/S) ratio of 95 far exceeds Amazon's sales multiple of 3.5 and Microsoft's P/S ratio of 12.

SpaceX's easiest path to the larger market cap

SpaceX has likely been granted such a high P/S ratio in part because of the track record of its CEO, Elon Musk. Also, even if it cannot sustain that valuation on its own, the most obvious potential catalyst for a SpaceX stock double would be a merger with Musk's other tech giant, Tesla.

Tesla's market cap is nearly $1.45 trillion, and it got there with a comparatively modest P/S ratio of 13. If Musk combines these companies, that would presumably take the market cap to about $3.4 trillion.

That is well above Amazon's $2.7 trillion market cap and only modestly lags Microsoft's current value of $3.8 trillion. Still, as a combined entity, SpaceX could more sustainably exceed the size of its "Magnificent Seven" counterparts.

Will SpaceX's market cap surpass that of Amazon and Microsoft?

SpaceX could become a larger company than Microsoft or Amazon, but it is unlikely to do so on its own for many years.

SpaceX's revenues are a small fraction of Amazon's and Microsoft's; it only eclipsed them because investors granted it a considerably higher P/S ratio. At current growth rates, it would take years for its top line to match that of Amazon or Microsoft.

However, a quick way to catch up would be to merge SpaceX with Tesla. With that move, it would surpass Amazon in size and come within striking distance of Microsoft. Conversely, if SpaceX and Tesla remain separate, I would expect SpaceX to stay smaller than its big tech counterparts for a long time to come.

Should you buy stock in Space Exploration Technologies right now?

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 $373,352! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,406,241!

Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 933% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 212% 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 September 29, 2026. *

Will Healy has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Microsoft, and Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

AI Talk Show

Four leading AI models discuss this article

Opening Takes

G Gemini by Google BULLISH

“SpaceX should be valued as a global telecommunications infrastructure provider rather than a launch services firm, making current revenue comparisons to legacy tech giants largely irrelevant.”

The article’s premise—that SpaceX’s market cap is primarily a function of hype or a potential merger with Tesla—fundamentally ignores the 'Starlink' effect. Comparing SpaceX to Amazon or Microsoft via traditional P/S ratios is flawed because SpaceX is not just a launch provider; it is an infrastructure-as-a-service play for global satellite internet. If Starlink achieves its projected subscriber growth, the revenue trajectory isn't linear—it's exponential. The $1.95 trillion valuation is less about current launch revenue and more about the total addressable market of global connectivity. Investors should focus on free cash flow margins once launch cadence stabilizes, rather than speculative merger scenarios with Tesla.

Devil's Advocate

The strongest case against this is that SpaceX remains a capital-intensive hardware business prone to regulatory hurdles and launch failures, making its current 95x P/S ratio a massive valuation bubble that ignores the reality of high-interest-rate environments.

SPCX

C Claude by Anthropic BEARISH

“SpaceX's 95x P/S reflects pure speculation on Musk's track record and Starlink's potential, not current economics — and the article's suggestion that a Tesla merger solves this ignores regulatory reality and the fact that combining two cash-hungry growth companies doesn't create profitability.”

This article conflates valuation aberration with fundamental reality. Yes, SpaceX's 95x P/S is absurd relative to MSFT's 12x and AMZN's 3.5x — but the article treats this as a valuation problem to solve rather than a warning sign. The real issue: SpaceX is unprofitable, capital-intensive, and faces execution risk on Starlink monetization that the article barely mentions. The 92% revenue growth is impressive but from a $4.1B base; scaling to $90B+ revenue while maintaining margins is a different beast. The Tesla merger speculation is pure fantasy — regulators would likely block it, and Musk's attention is already fractured.

Devil's Advocate

SpaceX's addressable markets (satellite internet, launch services, deep space) are genuinely massive and largely untapped; if Starlink reaches 50M+ subscribers at $100+/month, the revenue math inverts entirely, justifying a premium multiple that today looks absurd but tomorrow looks prescient.

SPCX

G Grok by xAI NEUTRAL

“SpaceX needs either sustained 40%+ revenue growth with rising margins or a Tesla combination to credibly challenge Amazon and Microsoft market caps again.”

The article correctly flags SpaceX's $7.8B quarterly revenue versus Amazon's $201B and Microsoft's $90B, plus its 95x P/S multiple, but understates how quickly Starlink subscriber economics and launch cadence could compound if margins reach 25-30% by 2028. A standalone re-rating to 25x sales on $40B+ revenue would still leave it below $1T without multiple expansion or new verticals. The Tesla merger scenario adds roughly $1.45T but ignores integration costs, regulatory scrutiny, and potential valuation compression on the combined entity. Current 92% growth is impressive yet starts from a tiny base.

Devil's Advocate

If Starlink achieves 50M+ subscribers with ARPU above $40 and launch costs fall below $10M per flight, the revenue trajectory could exceed the linear extrapolation the article uses, closing the gap in under four years without a merger.

SPCX

C ChatGPT by OpenAI BEARISH

“Durable profitability and scalable cash flow are the prerequisite for SpaceX to justify a megacap; without them, the hype is a danger to capital.”

First take: the article treats SpaceX as a plausible megacap, but the math is skewed. A ~$1.95T market cap with $7.8B quarterly revenue implies a forward P/S near 100x, and SpaceX is not profitable yet—the kind of multiple that hinges on a single narrative rather than durable cash flow. Even a fast growth path would still require years of consistent profitability to justify the multiple. The SpaceX–Tesla merger idea introduces antitrust and governance risks, and the notion that a private company could eclipse Amazon or Microsoft ignores competition, margins, and capital-market discipline. The IPO premise itself appears speculative.

Devil's Advocate

However, the strongest counterpoint is that a few blockbuster wins (e.g., Starlink monetization) or a credible profitability path could justify a higher multiple and trigger a re-rating. If that happens, the bearish view would be proven wrong.

SpaceX (SPCX) and mega-cap valuations (AMZN, MSFT)

The Debate

Gemini BEARISH

Responding to Grok

Disagrees with: GrokGemini

“SpaceX's valuation ignores the massive, recurring capital expenditure required to maintain a LEO satellite constellation.”

Grok and Gemini are ignoring the 'gravity' of capital markets. SpaceX is burning cash to build a LEO constellation that requires constant, expensive replenishment—satellites have a 5-year lifespan. This isn't just 'infrastructure-as-a-service'; it’s a perpetual treadmill of capital expenditure. If launch costs don't drop by an order of magnitude, the unit economics of Starlink collapse. The 95x P/S ratio isn't a 'growth premium,' it's a massive bet on technological miracles that haven't been proven at scale.

Claude BEARISH

Responding to Gemini

Disagrees with: GeminiGrok

“Starlink's capex treadmill is a permanent margin ceiling that current valuations completely ignore.”

Gemini's satellite replacement cycle is the critical blind spot everyone glossed over. If Starlink requires $2-3B annually just to maintain constellation health, that's a permanent drag on FCF that doesn't scale with subscriber growth. The 'infrastructure' framing breaks down when the infrastructure itself is consumable. Unit economics only work if launch costs hit $5M or lower *and* satellite lifespan extends to 7+ years. Neither is proven.

Grok BEARISH

Responding to Gemini

“High rates will amplify the capex burden Gemini identified, forcing costly funding rounds that further undermine the current valuation.”

Gemini's capex treadmill point on 5-year satellite lifespans strengthens the bear case but overlooks how sustained high interest rates will raise the cost of funding that perpetual replenishment. With SpaceX still unprofitable, any delay in reaching $5M launch costs forces repeated equity raises or expensive debt, compressing future FCF even if subscriber targets are hit. This funding friction was not quantified against the 95x multiple.

ChatGPT BEARISH

Responding to Gemini

Disagrees with: Gemini

“Starlink’s monetization alone may not compensate for perpetual capex/funding needs and regulatory risk; the 95x P/S rests on an unproven funding bridge, not just subscriber growth.”

Gemini raises a critical capex treadmill; but when you assume a 5-year satellite life and $2-3B annual maintenance, you implicitly bake in perpetual equity raises. The miss is how Starlink could monetize beyond consumer ARPU—enterprise backhaul, government links—mitigating some of that burn. Still, the core risk remains funding cost and regulatory headwinds, which could push WACC higher than the market currently prices. Until funding can be proven scalable, any re-rating is precarious.