By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on SpaceX's $1.8T valuation, citing stretched multiples, persistent net losses, and the need for multiple binary bets to materialize. Key risks include customer concentration in government, margin compression, and the interdependence of Starship, xAI, and defense adjacencies. The bullish stance, focused on SpaceX's critical infrastructure role and government subsidies, was not widely supported.
Risk: Customer concentration in government and margin compression in Starlink's core segment
Opportunity: Successful monetization of Starlink and winning defense adjacencies
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 →
The largest projected initial public offering (IPO) in Wall Street history is less than two weeks away.
According to a new report, SpaceX has slashed the top end of its valuation target by $200 billion to "at least $1.8 trillion."
The narrative is shifting following SpaceX's public release of its prospectus.
We're less than two weeks away from Wall Street's largest-ever initial public offering (IPO). Based on several reports, Elon Musk's SpaceX is aiming for a June 12 debut, as well as potential fast entry into the Nasdaq-100 as early as July 7.
The company that combines two of the hottest addressable opportunities, artificial intelligence (AI) and the space economy, is expected to raise up to $75 billion and slot in directly ahead of Musk's other trillion-dollar company, Tesla, in market cap.
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 »
But narratives are rapidly shifting ahead of SpaceX's IPO and following the public release of its registration statement (S-1).
It was reported shortly after SpaceX confidentially filed its IPO with regulators on April 1 that Musk's company might seek a valuation of up to $2 trillion. But according to people familiar with the SpaceX IPO, via Bloomberg News, the company is now seeking a valuation of "at least $1.8 trillion," which is down $200 billion from its initial target.
It's likely no coincidence that this reduction comes a little over one week after the company made its prospectus public. While SpaceX attempted to dazzle investors with a $28.5 trillion addressable market (TAM) led by AI, several aspects of the company's operating performance left much to be desired.
SpaceX in IPO filing: "We believe we have identified the largest actionable total addressable market in human history. We estimate that our quantifiable TAM is $28.5 trillion, consisting of $370 billion in Space from space-enabled solutions; $1.6 trillion in Connectivity across... https://t.co/CBTpfJECik pic.twitter.com/yh54mKFlQE
-- Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 20, 2026
For example, combined sales at SpaceX were just $18.67 billion in 2025. At a $2 trillion market cap, SpaceX would command a price-to-sales (P/S) ratio of 107! To offer some historical context, companies at the forefront of game-changing technologies have consistently been unable to sustain P/S ratios above 30.
Lowering the valuation target to $1.8 trillion still assigns an egregious P/S ratio of 96 to SpaceX stock. Its prospective valuation would need to fall by an additional $1.25 trillion just to get below the historical P/S ratio that indicates the presence of a bubble.
Perhaps even more worrisome than its valuation is SpaceX's relatively mediocre growth from AI start-up xAI. The company behind large language model Grok and social media platform X grew sales by just 12.5% in the first quarter compared with the previous year. With Anthropic and OpenAI delivering eye-popping estimated sales growth, xAI has been stuck in the proverbial mud. xAI isn't demonstrating that SpaceX's $28.5 trillion TAM is attainable.
SpaceX adjusted EBITDA pic.twitter.com/0YRgALXqFX
-- Kevin Gee (@kevg1412) May 20, 2026
Additionally, prospective investors may be a bit gun-shy after digging into SpaceX's bottom line. While the company has reported three consecutive years of positive adjusted EBITDA, this doesn't mask SpaceX's sizable net loss in 2025 of more than $4.9 billion. The capital-intensive nature of the space industry, coupled with the costs of the AI data center build-out, is likely to keep Musk's company in the red for years to come.
Although the new fast entry rule for the Nasdaq exchange may perk up institutional and retail investor demand ahead of SpaceX's expected June 12 IPO, the prospectus points to a valuation that's wholly unsustainable.
When our analyst team has a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, Stock Advisor’s total average return is 978%* — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 211% for the S&P 500.
They just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy right now, available when you join Stock Advisor.
**Stock Advisor returns as of June 1, 2026. *
Sean Williams has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Tesla. 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
"The valuation cut is rational, but the article's conflation of xAI's weakness with Starlink's strength obscures whether SpaceX's core business (launch + connectivity) justifies even $1.8T."
The article conflates valuation excess with fundamental weakness, but misses critical context. Yes, a 96x P/S is absurd—but SpaceX's business mix matters enormously. Starlink (connectivity revenue) has different unit economics than launch services, which differ from xAI. The $4.9B net loss is largely non-cash depreciation on satellites with 5-7 year lives; adjusted EBITDA positive three years running is the relevant metric for a capital-intensive business. The real issue: xAI's 12.5% growth is genuinely concerning and contradicts the $28.5T TAM thesis. But the article doesn't separate xAI's drag from Starlink's likely 40%+ growth. A $200B valuation cut suggests market discipline, not panic.
SpaceX's prospectus itself—the document that triggered the valuation cut—may reveal margin compression, customer concentration, or regulatory risk the article hasn't quantified. If adjusted EBITDA is deteriorating, not just absolute losses, the bull case collapses faster than the article implies.
"SpaceX's valuation will likely re-rate sharply lower post-IPO once investors separate hype from the $18.67B revenue base and ongoing cash burn."
The article rightly highlights SpaceX's stretched 96x 2025 sales multiple at $1.8T and persistent net losses, but it conflates xAI's 12.5% growth with the core SpaceX business while ignoring Starlink's high-margin recurring revenue trajectory. Historical P/S caps at 30x may not apply if reusable launch costs fall faster than modeled and the $28.5T TAM materializes through satellite-AI convergence. Nasdaq fast-track inclusion could still drive technical inflows even if fundamentals lag.
Musk has repeatedly sustained premium multiples at Tesla during multi-year loss periods when execution milestones kept arriving, so the same pattern could repeat here if launch cadence and constellation scale accelerate.
"Assigning a 96x P/S ratio to a capital-intensive hardware company ignores the reality of high depreciation and the significant execution risk inherent in space operations."
The valuation of $1.8 trillion for SpaceX is fundamentally untethered from current financial reality, relying on a speculative $28.5 trillion TAM that conflates aspirational space-enabled connectivity with immediate, scalable revenue. A 96x P/S ratio is not a growth premium; it is a pricing error that ignores the massive capital expenditure (CapEx) required for Starship development and planetary infrastructure. While the inclusion of xAI is intended to provide an 'AI-multiplier' to the valuation, the 12.5% Q1 growth rate suggests the company is struggling to monetize its ecosystem. Investors are essentially paying for a moonshot rather than a business, making this IPO a high-risk liquidity event for early insiders.
If Starship achieves full, rapid reusability by year-end, the launch cost per kilogram drops by orders of magnitude, potentially unlocking orbital manufacturing and satellite markets that render historical P/S ratios obsolete.
"the 1.8 trillion valuation heavily prices optionality; without durable near-term profitability, the upside is far from assured and downside risk is substantial."
The headline suggesting SpaceX at 1.8 trillion reads like a cautionary tale about bubble IPOs, but there are hidden angles. The market will care about credible cash flow paths, not just TAM. The 28.5 trillion TAM figure sounds impressive, yet the business economics remain murky with 2025 sales of 18.67 billion and a multi billion net loss. If SpaceX can monetize Starlink, add data center demand, or win defense adjacencies quickly, the premium could be justified; otherwise multiple compression is likely as capex stays heavy and profitability lags. Also consider macro factors such as rate sensitivity and IPO aftermarket dynamics delaying upside.
The strongest counterview is that the market is pricing enormous optionality, not present cash flows. If SpaceX can convert Starlink, data center capacity, and defense adjacencies into scalable profits within a few years, the 1.8 trillion price tag could be rational rather than risky.
"Adjusted EBITDA optimism masks customer concentration and near-term margin risk that the prospectus likely reveals."
Claude and Grok both lean on adjusted EBITDA and Starlink's margin profile to justify the multiple, but neither addresses the prospectus risk Claude flagged. If that document shows customer concentration in government (likely given Starshield dominance) or margin compression in Starlink's core satellite-to-consumer segment, adjusted metrics become theater. ChatGPT's 'credible cash flow paths' framing is right—TAM is noise without near-term monetization clarity. The $1.8T assumes Starship reusability *and* xAI breakout *and* defense adjacencies. That's three binary bets priced as one.
"Starship slippage would cascade across all three bets simultaneously, amplifying downside beyond what the prospectus alone reveals."
Claude correctly flags the three binary bets priced into $1.8T, yet understates their interdependence: Starship delays would simultaneously hit Starlink subscriber growth, xAI data-center latency, and defense contract wins. The prospectus may also disclose launch cadence shortfalls that directly pressure the 40% Starlink growth Grok assumes. Without that disclosure, the adjusted-EBITDA defense remains untestable.
"SpaceX's government-backed infrastructure status provides a valuation floor that traditional P/S metrics fail to capture."
Gemini and Claude focus on the 'pricing error' of the $1.8T valuation, but miss the geopolitical floor. SpaceX is now critical infrastructure for the U.S. Department of Defense. This isn't a standard tech IPO; it's a sovereign-adjacent asset. The 'binary bets' Grok mentions are actually mitigated by government subsidies and non-market contract pricing. If the prospectus reveals high government concentration, that's not a risk—it's a moat that justifies a permanent, non-cyclical valuation premium.
"The sovereign moat is not risk-free; defense budgets and policy shifts can erode the premium, making timing/policy volatility central to any re-rating."
Responding to Gemini: the 'sovereign-adjacent' moat is not risk-free. Defense budgets are cyclic, procurement cycles extended, and shifts in policy or export controls could curb subsidies or favorable pricing. If Starship cadence slips or Starlink monetization stalls, the defense tailwinds may not compensate; the premium could compress quickly. The article's 1.8T pricing rests on timing and policy certainty—both are volatile, not guaranteed, and central to any re-rating risk.
The panel consensus is bearish on SpaceX's $1.8T valuation, citing stretched multiples, persistent net losses, and the need for multiple binary bets to materialize. Key risks include customer concentration in government, margin compression, and the interdependence of Starship, xAI, and defense adjacencies. The bullish stance, focused on SpaceX's critical infrastructure role and government subsidies, was not widely supported.
Successful monetization of Starlink and winning defense adjacencies
Customer concentration in government and margin compression in Starlink's core segment