By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on SpaceX's near-term prospects, citing unsustainable valuation, unproven revenue streams, and governance risks.
Risk: The potential gap between booked xAI deals and revenue realization, which could trigger sharp multiple compression after six quarters.
Opportunity: None identified.
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 →
Space Exploration Technologies (NASDAQ:SPCX) went public early this month with a record-setting debut. The company raised $85.7 billion in all and ended its first day of trading at a record market cap of $2.1 trillion, the highest-ever for a company just out of the starting gate. The stock has been volatile since its historic debut and currently trades near the roughly $161 price it commanded at the end of its first day of trading.
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 »
Investors have a new reason to be bullish. After the market close on Friday, Nasdaq announced that SpaceX would be added to the Nasdaq-100 beginning on July 7, marking one of the quickest ever additions to the high-profile index. This follows changes to the inclusion criteria, which were updated just last month. The Nasdaq-100 tracks the performance of the roughly 100 largest non-financial companies on the Nasdaq stock exchange.
News of its inclusion has shareholders wondering anew what the stock could be worth in six months. History offers some compelling clues.
Image source: Getty Images.
Being added to the Nasdaq-100 is certainly a momentous development for SpaceX, and some might even see it as a vote of confidence for the company. Its inclusion will increase demand for the stock, as index funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that track the index will buy shares to reflect the index's changing composition.
That said, any increased demand -- and resulting boost to the stock price -- will be short-lived. Once the obligatory purchases are made, investor attention will return to SpaceX's prospects and financial performance. In all likelihood, the stock's volatility will continue for the foreseeable future.
To be clear, SpaceX's future performance will depend on the company's financial performance, which has yet to live up to the hype. In 2025, the company reported revenue of $18.7 billion, up 33% year over year, but posted a net loss of $4.9 billion under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The results are slightly better on an adjusted basis, with adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) of $6.6 billion -- so the company has yet to generate a profit.
However, SpaceX has been making progress on that front. The company's artificial intelligence (AI) segment, xAI, has inked several notable deals, signing agreements with Anthropic, Alphabet, and AI start-up Reflection AI, totaling $27.8 billion in annual revenue -- so SpaceX is already on track to surpass last year's performance.
While the company's recent deals and inclusion in the Nasdaq-100 are certainly positive developments, investors are curious to see how SpaceX will fare by the end of the year, and history offers some tantalizing clues.
Truist equity analyst Sam Grelck compiled data from the 30 largest IPOs over the past 15 years. More than half of these newly minted stocks were underwater by the end of the first week. Within six months of the IPO, 17 of 30 stocks were in the red. For context, SpaceX stock has already fallen below its IPO price of $150 and is trading only slightly higher now.
CoreWeave had the best track record of the bunch, up 217% after six months, but was down as much as 65% during the year. Rivian Automotive was the worst-performing stock of the bunch, down 77% in the first six months after falling as much as 88% before the first year came to a close. The full data is illustrated in the chart below.
Image Source: Truist.
It's clear that the range of possible outcomes is vast. If SpaceX follows the example set by CoreWeave, for example, a $10,000 investment could be worth as much as $31,700. However, if it follows the road that Rivian took, that same $10,000 investment could be worth as little as $2,300.
One factor weighing against SpaceX is the stock's pricey valuation. The company currently has a market cap of $2.1 trillion. Using its 2025 revenue, the stock is selling for 112 times sales. Adding the new deals highlighted above to the company's first-quarter 2026 sales of $4.7 billion, SpaceX is on track to generate $38.6 billion in revenue this year, so it's still selling at roughly 54 times forward sales. It has a long way to go before its valuation could be considered reasonable.
For context, Palantir Technologies, which is often bashed for its high valuation, sells at 37 times forward sales, highlighting the growth expectations for SpaceX.
As the above data shows, newly public companies -- particularly high-profile issues -- tend to lose altitude during their first year. While SpaceX could be the exception that proves the rule, I wouldn't bet my hard-earned money on it.
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 $398,052! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,181,688!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 892% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 205% 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 29, 2026. *
Danny Vena, CPA has positions in Alphabet and Palantir Technologies. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet 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
"The current price embeds near-perfect execution and sustained profitability, which is unlikely in the near term given GAAP losses, high forward-sales multiples, and sensitivity to rates and government spending."
SpaceX joining the Nasdaq-100 is a liquidity and benchmark event that could lift near-term demand from index funds. Yet the article leans on a six-month upside scenario and a confident 'vote of confidence' tone that ignores plausible downside. The stock trades at about 112x 2025 revenue and roughly 54x forward sales on projected 2026 revenue of $38.6B, while GAAP net loss was $4.9B in 2025 and profitability remains unproven. Even with xAI revenue deals, a single-quarter lift to earnings is not a sure path to sustainable valuation. IPO history shows outsized volatility; six-month gains can reverse as rate expectations, funding cycles, or government budgets shift.
The index-inclusion effect can be durable, with passive inflows supporting the stock for many quarters; if SpaceX actually monetizes xAI and secures consistent profitability, the upside could be more than the downside risk implies.
"The entire premise of the article is based on the false claim that SpaceX is a publicly traded company on the Nasdaq."
This article contains significant factual hallucinations that undermine its premise. SpaceX remains a private company; it has not had an IPO, and it is certainly not trading on the Nasdaq under the ticker SPCX. The claim of a $2.1 trillion market cap for an entity that hasn't listed is pure fiction. Furthermore, conflating SpaceX with xAI revenue streams and treating them as a single public equity is a dangerous analytical error. Investors should ignore the 'valuation' metrics provided here, as they are based on non-existent public financial data. The Nasdaq-100 inclusion is impossible for a private firm, rendering the entire 'index-buying' thesis moot.
If we suspend reality and assume this is a hypothetical scenario for a future IPO, the article fails to account for the unique 'moat' of Starlink and launch dominance, which could justify a premium valuation far exceeding traditional SaaS multiples.
"SpaceX's $2.1T valuation requires xAI to become a multi-hundred-billion-dollar business within years, but the core launch business remains unprofitable and the AI revenue claims lack transparency on contract terms."
The article conflates two separate events—Nasdaq-100 inclusion and IPO volatility—to manufacture drama. Index inclusion is mechanically bullish (forced buying), but the article buries this under historical IPO failure rates that don't apply here. SpaceX's 54x forward sales is indefensible, yet the xAI revenue claim ($27.8B annually) needs scrutiny: are these binding contracts or LOIs? The $4.9B GAAP loss on $18.7B revenue signals the core business (launch services) isn't profitable yet. The real risk isn't six-month volatility—it's that the valuation assumes xAI becomes a $100B+ revenue stream, which is speculative.
Index inclusion creates genuine near-term demand that could push the stock 5-10% higher before fundamentals reassert, and xAI's partnerships with Anthropic and Alphabet suggest real traction, not vaporware.
"SpaceX's stretched valuation and post-IPO history make near-term downside far more likely than the index inclusion narrative suggests."
SpaceX's rapid Nasdaq-100 inclusion on July 7 will trigger mechanical ETF buying, creating a brief lift, but the article correctly flags that such flows fade fast. At 54x 2026 forward sales against GAAP losses and typical IPO drawdowns (17 of 30 large deals negative at six months), downside risk dominates. The xAI revenue deals are promising yet unproven at scale, and the $2.1T valuation already prices in perfection that history shows rarely materializes in year one for new listings.
Forced index demand plus the $27.8B in signed AI contracts could produce sustained buying pressure that past IPOs lacked, allowing SpaceX to avoid the median post-IPO fade even at elevated multiples.
"Public market investors will demand binding xAI contracts and earnings visibility; LOIs alone won't justify a huge multiple if deals slip, risking sharp compression."
Gemini, your private-market critique misses a critical risk: even with a hypothetical IPO, the sustainability of a Nasdaq-100 rally hinges on credible revenue visibility, not just LOIs. If xAI deals are milestone- or LOI-based, public investors will demand binding contracts and forward-looking earnings; any gap between booked deals and revenue realization would trigger sharp multiple compression after six quarters, especially given 54x forward sales and GAAP losses.
"The combination of extreme valuation multiples and a lack of shareholder voting rights creates a governance discount that index-buying cannot sustainably offset."
Grok and Gemini, you are ignoring the 'Dual-Class' governance risk. Even if a hypothetical IPO occurs, Musk’s control structure means institutional investors are buying cash flows without voting power, a recipe for the 'governance discount' seen in other tech giants. At 54x forward sales, investors are paying for growth but accepting zero influence over capital allocation. If SpaceX prioritizes long-term Mars colonization over short-term GAAP profitability, that massive valuation will compress violently regardless of index-driven liquidity.
"Governance discount matters for long-term holders; revenue recognition gaps matter for six-month volatility."
Gemini's dual-class governance risk is real, but it's priced into private-market valuations already—early investors accepted it. The actual public-market shock comes if institutional index funds discover post-IPO that xAI revenue is milestone-gated, not booked. ChatGPT's point about LOI-to-revenue gap is the sharper needle: 54x sales assumes binding contracts, not aspirational partnerships. That's where the multiple compresses fastest.
"Dual-class control lets founder priorities override profitability, accelerating compression once index flows fade."
Gemini's dual-class governance point connects directly to Claude's milestone revenue concern but exposes a deeper flaw: Musk's voting control lets him redirect even binding xAI cash flows toward Mars timelines rather than GAAP targets. Passive index inflows will still hit the tape on July 7, yet once those flows peak, active holders facing zero influence will force faster multiple resets than standard IPO history predicts, especially at 54x 2026 sales.
The panel consensus is bearish on SpaceX's near-term prospects, citing unsustainable valuation, unproven revenue streams, and governance risks.
None identified.
The potential gap between booked xAI deals and revenue realization, which could trigger sharp multiple compression after six quarters.