Is SpaceX Worth $1.75 Trillion?
The Multiple Says You're Buying AI, Not Rockets

SpaceX is going public at a fixed price of $135.00 per share, which implies a valuation of approximately $1.75 trillion and a raise of around $75 billion on roughly 555.6 million shares offered. The company skipped the usual indicative price-range process and went straight to a fixed price — a deliberate tell of confident, oversubscribed demand, not a corner cut. Reuters pegged the figure near $1.75 trillion; Bloomberg reported the company pushed to test appetite above $2 trillion. At ~$1.75 trillion, SPCX would rank among the ten most valuable public companies on Earth on its first trading day, 2026-06-12, on Nasdaq — an unprecedented debut rank for a freshly listed name. For context, that is larger than Berkshire Hathaway, Tesla, and Taiwan Semiconductor, and behind only the biggest of the Magnificent Seven. Against $18.7 billion of FY2025 revenue it works out to roughly 90x sales — a multiple that only makes sense if you are not actually buying a rocket company, which is the next question.

It depends entirely on what you think you are buying. As an aerospace company, yes — overwhelmingly. At roughly 90x its 2025 revenue of $18.7 billion, SPCX is priced thirty to sixty times the 1.5x–3x multiples of Lockheed, Northrop, and Boeing, and no launch business in history justifies that spread. As an AI platform, the case inverts: the S-1 sizes the AI opportunity at $26.5 trillion — 93% of its claimed total addressable market — and Goldman Sachs projects SpaceX's AI revenue could reach $322 billion by 2030. Against that horizon, ~$1.75 trillion reads as a venture-style entry into Musk's AI stack with a 63%-margin satellite network thrown in. The truthful answer is that the valuation is indefensible on current cash flows — the company lost $4.9 billion on a GAAP basis last year — and defensible only on the AI narrative. So the stock is a referendum on xAI, priced today, and dressed in a rocket company's clothes.

It is not in the same league — it is in its own. The largest IPO on record was Alibaba in 2014 at roughly $25 billion raised; Saudi Aramco's 2019 debut raised about $29 billion; Arm's 2023 listing, the biggest of that year, raised $4.9 billion. SpaceX is targeting roughly $75 billion — about three times the previous record and more than fifteen times Arm. On day-one market capitalization the gap is starker still: Alibaba debuted near $231 billion, while SpaceX is expected to open near $1.75 trillion, roughly seven times larger. Whether you measure by capital raised or by opening value, the SPCX offering is the largest in history by a wide margin, and the first to debut directly into the ranks of the world's ten biggest companies rather than climb there over years. That is not a scaled-up Arm; it is a different category of event — a piece of global infrastructure being listed, not a growth company going public.

They wouldn't — and that is the point. Nobody underwriting $135.00 a share is valuing rockets. They are valuing three things the headline multiple hides: a recurring, 63%-margin Starlink network that already books $11.4 billion a year; a call option on xAI, whose $26.5 trillion claimed TAM and $322 billion 2030 Goldman forecast dwarf the entire space business; and a scarcity premium on infrastructure no competitor can replicate. The 90x figure is simply what you get when you divide a price built on those three by a single year of current $18.7 billion revenue — an artifact of timing, not a considered multiple. The real question a buyer is answering is narrower and sharper: do Starlink's cash flows and Washington's dependence on the launch layer make the AI bet effectively free-rolled? If yes, the multiple is noise and unremovability is the whole thesis. If no, that same 90x is the warning label on a $6.355 billion-a-year loss-maker.

The valuation is the dependency thesis expressed in dollars. A 90x multiple on a commodity is a bubble; a 90x multiple on infrastructure that launch, connectivity, defense, and AI all route through is a scarcity premium the market is consciously choosing to pay. The ~$1.75 trillion is not a bet on 2025 income — the company posted a $4.9 billion GAAP loss against a $41.3 billion accumulated deficit — it is a bet that the four chains are fused tightly enough that none can be removed without breaking the others, which is precisely what makes Musk unremovable from global infrastructure. That is also the central risk: the same interlock that could make $1.75 trillion look cheap is what makes the company impossible to break up, regulate cleanly, or compete against — and impossible to value with a normal model. Buyers at $135.00 are not underwriting a multiple; they are underwriting unremovability itself, and accepting that no spreadsheet will ever fully confirm or refute the trade.