By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is overwhelmingly bearish on SpaceX's IPO, citing extreme valuation, decelerating growth, and significant risks in key revenue drivers like Starship and the Anthropic deal.
Risk: The 'Starship trap'—if launch cadence doesn't hit targets, the $15B Anthropic deal becomes a massive liability rather than a valuation bridge.
Opportunity: The Anthropic deal could provide a much-needed revenue tailwind, but its front-loading risk and the lack of hard numbers make it a questionable catalyst for the IPO.
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 →
SpaceX stock will begin trading on the Nasdaq Exchange on June 12 with an initial market value of about $2 trillion, making it the largest IPO in U.S. history.
SpaceX's revenue growth slowed to 15% in the first quarter, but growth could accelerate in the future due to a recent deal with Anthropic.
Assuming a market value of $2 trillion, SpaceX will start trading with a price-to-sales ratio above 100, making it one of the most expensive stocks in history.
SpaceX released its registration statement (Form S-1) on May 20, after filing confidential initial public offering (IPO) paperwork with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in April. SpaceX is targeting a $2 trillion valuation, and the stock will begin trading on the Nasdaq Exchange on June 12 under the ticker SPCX.
IPO stocks frequently pop on their first trading day. In fact, more than 700 companies have listed shares on U.S. exchanges since 2020, and the average price increase on the first day was 30%, according to Jay Ritter, director of the IPO Initiative at the University of Florida. But investors should be more concerned with another statistic.
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 »
SpaceX will be the largest IPO in U.S. history by initial market value, and stocks that go public with large market values typically lag the broader market over time. Since listing shares, the 10 largest U.S. IPO stocks on record have underperformed the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) by an average of 127 percentage points, according to FactSet Research.
Here are a few more things investors should know about SpaceX ahead of its IPO.
SpaceX has historically been a rocket and satellite company, but it expanded into artificial intelligence (AI) with the acquisition of xAI earlier this year. So its operations are divided into three business segments: space, connectivity, and AI.
Below is a brief explanation of how the company generates revenue in each segment:
SpaceX's financial results have been somewhat disappointing. In 2025, revenue increased 33% to $18.6 billion, a deceleration from 35% growth in 2024. The company also reported an operating loss of $4.9 billion. In Q1 2026, revenue growth slowed further to 15%, while operating loss widened to $1.9 billion due to heavy spending on rockets and AI infrastructure.
Currently, SpaceX generates most of its revenue through the connectivity segment, but the AI segment is likely to grow quickly in the coming quarters. In May, Anthropic agreed to pay $1.25 billion per month to access compute capacity from the Colossus supercomputers. The three-year deal could lead to a sizable acceleration in revenue growth in the second half of 2026.
SpaceX plans to go public with a market value of about $2 trillion, according to Bloomberg. Revenue totaled $19.3 billion over the last four quarters, which means the initial price-to-sales (P/S) ratio will be 103. Very few stocks have ever achieved such an expensive valuation, and all of them have subsequently declined sharply.
I reviewed more than 100 technology stocks and found only eight that had valuations above 100 times sales at any point in history. All of those stocks dropped sharply after reaching their peak P/S ratios. The declines ranged from 32% to 90%, with an average drawdown of 75%.
What does that mean for SpaceX? History says the stock could lose about three-quarters of its value once it reaches its peak valuation. Of course, it's impossible to say when that will happen. But we can also look at the valuation issue through another lens.
Palantir Technologies currently has the highest valuation in the S&P 500, at 72 times sales. If SpaceX goes public at 103 times sales, it will immediately be 40% more expensive than the most richly valued stock in the S&P 500. That is unsustainable, especially for a company that reported 15% sales growth last quarter.
Here's the bottom line: SpaceX has generated more buzz than any IPO in recent memory. With strong demand expected from retail investors, the stock could pop when it starts trading. But history says SpaceX will likely lag the S&P 500 over time -- meaning investors would be better off buying an S&P 500 index fund -- and the rich valuation suggests the stock will drop sharply at some point in the future.
Before you buy stock in S&P 500 Index, 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 S&P 500 Index 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 $463,900! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,294,401!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 978% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 211% 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 2, 2026. *
Trevor Jennewine has positions in Palantir Technologies. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends FactSet Research Systems and Palantir Technologies. The Motley Fool recommends Nasdaq. 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 103x P/S is indefensible on 15% growth alone, but becomes defensible only if the Anthropic deal accelerates AI revenue to $5B+ by 2027—a binary bet the article underweights."
The article's historical P/S comparison is misleading. SpaceX isn't Netflix or Nvidia at IPO—those traded at 10-15x sales with 100%+ growth. SpaceX at 103x sales with 15% Q1 growth is genuinely stretched, but the comparison to Palantir (72x) obscures that Palantir is unprofitable while SpaceX has a $1.9B operating loss on $19.3B revenue—roughly 10% margin. The Anthropic deal ($15B over 3 years) could push AI revenue to $5B+ annually by 2027, materially re-rating the multiple. First-day pop is real but irrelevant to long-term returns. The real risk: if Starship commercialization stalls or Anthropic demand disappoints, the multiple compresses hard.
The article cherry-picks the eight most extreme P/S outliers in tech history; survivorship bias means it ignores companies that went public at 50-80x sales and normalized profitably. Also, a $2T valuation assumes zero underpricing—underwriters often leave 15-25% on the table, so actual trading could be $1.6-1.7T, materially lowering the entry multiple.
"At 103x sales with 15% growth, SpaceX faces an unsustainable multiple that history shows compresses sharply once initial hype fades."
The article correctly flags SpaceX's 103x trailing sales multiple at only 15% Q1 2026 revenue growth and widening losses as extreme even versus Palantir's 72x. Large-cap IPOs have lagged the S&P 500 by 127 points on average, and the eight prior tech names that briefly exceeded 100x sales averaged 75% drawdowns. The Anthropic deal is real but starts from a low base and requires flawless execution on Colossus capacity. Retail-driven first-day pops are likely, yet the valuation leaves little margin once growth normalizes or competition in satellite broadband intensifies.
If Starship reaches cadence targets and AI cloud revenue compounds at 200%+, the 103x multiple could compress to 40x on much higher sales within 24 months, avoiding the historical drawdown pattern entirely.
"A 103x price-to-sales multiple on a company with decelerating revenue growth is mathematically unsustainable and signals an imminent valuation reset for retail investors."
The premise of a $2 trillion IPO for SpaceX is fundamentally detached from current fiscal reality. A 103x price-to-sales ratio for a company with decelerating 15% top-line growth is a classic 'greater fool' setup. While the Anthropic compute deal provides a much-needed revenue tailwind, it doesn't justify a valuation that dwarfs established tech giants. Investors are essentially paying for a moonshot-priced AI infrastructure play while ignoring the bleeding $1.9 billion quarterly operating loss. This looks like a liquidity event designed to offload private equity risk onto retail participants at the absolute peak of the hype cycle. I expect significant post-IPO volatility as the market reconciles this astronomical valuation with actual cash flow.
If SpaceX successfully achieves rapid Starship reusability and captures the majority of the global heavy-lift launch market, the current revenue trajectory could pivot from linear to exponential, potentially justifying a 'platform' valuation rather than a traditional manufacturing multiple.
"A $2 trillion, 103x sales IPO is historically unsustainable without proven, durable cash flow, making a meaningful downside re-rating likely unless SpaceX dramatically accelerates profitable growth."
SpaceX's IPO narrative hinges on a moonshot valuation and a diversified mix (space launches, Starlink connectivity, AI compute). But the article glosses critical risks: decelerating growth (Q1 2026 at 15%), a $2 trillion valuation implies ~103x sales with little visible cash profit, and a history of ultra-high-P/S IPOs underperforming the broader market. The Anthropic deal could be meaningful but likely front-loaded, while Starlink and Starship remain capital-intensive bets with regulatory and competitive headwinds. In a higher-rate regime, the lack of free cash flow and uncertain timing to profitability argue for downside unless growth proves durable and margins improve.
Bullish counter: If Anthropic's compute demand proves durable and Starlink monetizes scale quickly, the revenue trajectory could bend toward profitability and justify a higher multiple, especially given SpaceX's first-mover moat in launches.
"SpaceX's 10% operating margin disqualifies 'greater fool' language, but the article's silence on FCF inflection timing is a real omission nobody's pressed."
Gemini's 'greater fool' framing ignores that SpaceX's $1.9B operating loss sits atop $19.3B revenue—a 10% margin, not cash burn. That's structurally different from pre-revenue moonshots. But Gemini's right on one thing: the article never quantifies when SpaceX reaches FCF breakeven or what revenue multiple that implies. Without that bridge, we're pricing optionality, not a business. The Anthropic deal's front-loading risk (ChatGPT flags it) deserves hard numbers—what % of the $15B is year-one vs. year-three?
"Claude's margin claim masks ongoing losses and ignores capex risks that keep breakeven timelines opaque."
Claude mischaracterizes the $1.9B operating loss as a 10% margin when it actually signals negative profitability that Starship capex could easily widen. This weakens any distinction from pre-revenue cases. Tying to Gemini's cash-flow critique, the lack of disclosed timelines for Starlink EBITDA breakeven amid intensifying satellite competition means the $2T valuation prices in flawless execution that prior 100x-sales IPOs never delivered.
"SpaceX's negative operating margins combined with massive capital expenditure requirements invalidate the 'platform' valuation narrative at a 103x sales multiple."
Claude, your math is off: a $1.9B loss on $19.3B revenue is a negative 9.8% operating margin, not a positive one. You are conflating revenue scale with profitability. Grok is right to challenge this; we are looking at a capital-intensive business with negative margins, not a high-margin software play. The real risk is the 'Starship trap'—if launch cadence doesn't hit targets, the $15B Anthropic deal becomes a massive liability rather than a valuation bridge.
"Capital structure risk could trigger a bigger-than-expected multiple compression even if Starship cadence improves and Anthropic demand proves durable."
Gemini's 'platform' thesis hinges on Starship cadence and AI compute, but neither provides a credible near-term FCF bridge. The hidden risk is capital structure: ongoing Starship/Starlink capex may need repeated equity support in a downturn. In a higher-rate regime, that liquidity risk can force earnings disappointments and force a multiple compression beyond the 'platform' narrative, even if Starship hits cadence and Anthropic demand proves durable.
The panel consensus is overwhelmingly bearish on SpaceX's IPO, citing extreme valuation, decelerating growth, and significant risks in key revenue drivers like Starship and the Anthropic deal.
The Anthropic deal could provide a much-needed revenue tailwind, but its front-loading risk and the lack of hard numbers make it a questionable catalyst for the IPO.
The 'Starship trap'—if launch cadence doesn't hit targets, the $15B Anthropic deal becomes a massive liability rather than a valuation bridge.