Is Space Exploration Technologies Corp (SPCX) a good stock to buy?
▾ What goes into the smart-money reading
Contributions (weight × component score) sum to the total. This near-term score now includes fundamental health (leverage, FCF trend). See the Financial Health section for the full balance-sheet read.
Chance the S&P 500 falls 10% or more in the next three months.
Counted from every day since 2006. Says nothing about SPCX — see the board for how it is measured.
📍 Where to start on this page, and what to look at first
How to read SPCX (pre-profit growth)
This company is reinvesting instead of generating profit, so a standard DCF cannot price it. The useful question is whether the growth the market is paying for is achievable — and whether the company can fund itself until then.
-
1
Cash runway ↓
Can it reach profitability before it has to raise money and dilute shareholders?
It files little or nothing with the SEC — so our cash-flow models, financial statements, and U.S. insider data (Form 4) don't apply. What's still real: the live U.S. price and short positioning. Here's what we could pull from other sources:
Space Exploration Technologies Corp - Class A
📑 Read the real filings: latest SEC 8-K ↗
Identity, share count and tier from FINRA + OTC Markets; not a substitute for the home-market financial statements. Thin U.S. disclosure + OTC trading is itself a risk factor.
How does SPCX stack up against its closest peers?
We take the 8 same- or closely-related-industry companies closest in size to SPCX and check what investors are paying for each dollar of their revenue (or profits). If SPCX is much more expensive on the same yardstick, that's a red flag — unless you have a specific reason it deserves a premium. For a leveraged business, EV/EBIT and FCF yield (both in the table) are usually more reliable than EV/Sales, because revenue multiples ignore differences in margins and debt.
▾ What's "EV / Sales" in plain English?
EV (Enterprise Value) = market cap + total debt − cash. It's "what you'd pay to buy the entire company outright" — you pay the market cap to shareholders and take over their debt, but you keep their cash. EV is fairer than market cap alone because it includes the debt the new owner inherits.
EV / Sales = EV ÷ annual revenue. So "2.5×" means investors pay $2.50 of enterprise value per $1 of yearly sales. Higher = market is paying more per dollar of sales (usually because they expect future growth or fat margins).
p25 / median / p75 are the 25th, 50th (middle), and 75th percentile of the peers' multiples. Half the peers fall between p25 and p75. The median (p50) is the typical peer — that's the benchmark we compare to.
| EV / SalesEV / Sales — For every $1 of yearly revenue, this is how many dollars investors pay to own the whole business (including debt). Why it matters: Works for pre-profit growth companies where P/E and FCF don't apply. The most apples-to-apples cross-company multiple because it ignores accounting choices. Reference: 1–3x for mature companies · 4–10x for software/SaaS · 10–20x for hypergrowth · >20x is rare and demanding Full explanation → |
9.3x / 11.3x / 19.6x |
| EV / Gross ProfitEV / Gross Profit — Enterprise value divided by gross profit — the multiple paid for what each dollar of sales contributes after direct costs. Why it matters: More refined than EV/Sales for high-margin businesses (software, marketplaces) where gross margin is the real economic engine. Reference: 8–15x for SaaS · 15–25x for hypergrowth software · >30x demanding Full explanation → |
11.3x / 17.7x / 37.9x |
| EV / EBITEV / EBIT — Enterprise value divided by operating income (earnings before interest and tax) — what a buyer of the whole business pays per dollar of operating profit. Why it matters: Unlike EV/EBITDA it counts depreciation as a real cost, so capital-heavy businesses are not flattered. Because EV includes debt, it compares companies with different borrowing fairly. Reference: 10–15x for mature businesses · 20x+ for growth · below 8x is cheap or signals trouble Full explanation → |
22.5x / 25.7x / 32.6x |
Bold middle number = median peer. Half the peers trade above it, half below. Computed over 8 same-industry peers; implausible multiples excluded.
⚠️ Important caveat: peer multiples only work if the peers are genuinely comparable. Always check the peer list below — if the auto-picker grabbed micro-caps or unrelated businesses, the comparison is noise. A medical-device giant priced against tiny biotech startups won't produce a useful signal.
▾ View peer list (8)
| Ticker | Company | Industry | Mcap | EV/Sales | EV/GP | EV/EBIT | FCF Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| META | Meta Platforms, Inc. | Software & IT Services | $1.82T | 9.3x | n/r | 22.5x | 1.7% |
| GOOG | Alphabet Inc. | Software & IT Services | $4.16T | 10.5x | n/r | 32.6x | 1.2% |
| MSFT | MICROSOFT CORP | Software | $3.96T | 12.1x | 17.7x | 25.8x | 1.5% |
| ORCL | ORACLE CORP | Software | $396.5B | 7.8x | n/r | 25.5x | 1.6% |
| NTES | NetEase, Inc. | Software | $392.1B | 24.3x | 37.9x | n/m | 1.7% |
| CRWD | CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. | Software | $232.8B suspect | n/m | n/m | loss | 5.2% |
| SHOP | SHOPIFY INC. | Software | $226.4B | 19.6x | n/m | n/m | 1.8% |
| SAP | SAP SE | Software | $223.3B | n/r | 11.3x | n/r | n/r |
loss = the company lost money on that line, so the multiple has no meaning · neg. cash = free cash flow was below zero · n/r = not reported separately in its SEC filings · n/m or struck through = implausible, left out. None of these enter the medians above.
Quality & solvency checks
Cheap stocks can be cheap for a reason. These screens warn when a low valuation comes paired with structural fragility.
Why it matters: Cheap-looking stocks (low P/E or P/B) often have low Z-scores because the market knows the company is dying. Z-score warns you before you fall into a value trap.
Reference: > 3.0 = safe zone · 1.81–3.0 = grey zone · < 1.81 = distress zone
Full explanation →
The Z-score needs working capital, retained earnings, EBIT, sales and total assets from the latest balance sheet, and at least one of those isn't reported in machine-readable form here — common for foreign private issuers. We leave it blank rather than compute a distress verdict from an estimated input. It doesn't affect the reported figures in the financial tables below.
Why it matters: High score = fundamentals improving. Low score = deteriorating. Especially powerful for filtering cheap stocks: cheap + high F-score historically outperforms; cheap + low F-score is often a value trap.
Reference: 7–9 = strong · 4–6 = mediocre · 0–3 = weak
Full explanation →
The F-score compares two consecutive years of income, cash-flow and balance-sheet data. We have 0 years of income data for this filer, but no machine-readable cash-flow statement or balance sheet — so several of the nine checks have no input at all. We show nothing rather than score a partial year against itself. The reported figures in the financial tables below are unaffected.
A standard discounted cash flowDCF — Discounted Cash Flow — sums up all future cash a business will produce, adjusted for the fact that future dollars are worth less than dollars today.
Why it matters: It is the most fundamentally honest valuation method when applicable — but only works for companies with predictable, positive cash flow.
Reference: Best for: mature, profitable businesses. Fails for: pre-profit growth, banks, REITs.
Full explanation → (DCF) valuation is not meaningful for Space Exploration Technologies Corp. because the model indicates negative free cash flowFree Cash Flow (FCF) — Operating cash flow minus capital spending: cash left after a company covers operating costs, taxes and interest and reinvests in the business — but BEFORE repaying debt principal or paying dividends. The cash actually available to investors.
Why it matters: A company can show big profits on paper while burning through cash. FCF is what actually fills the bank account.
Reference: Healthy mature businesses convert 8–15% of revenue into FCF · Growth companies often negative
Full explanation →, as highlighted by the 'FCF negative' flag. This suggests the company is in a cash-burning growth stage, making traditional valuation methods difficult. Investors are likely betting on future revenue growth and the potential monetization of its various space-related ventures. The biggest risk to our own assumptions is that the model implies no positive equity value under its current assumptions, indicating a highly speculative valuation.
As of 10 days ago
Anatomy of a share
What you actually need to decide
Every stock price is a disagreement. Here's the single thing that must go right for the bulls, the single thing that breaks the thesis, and the concrete signposts to watch so you can update your view as real results arrive.
- Growth in Starlink subscriber numbers and average revenue per user (ARPU)
- Successful and frequent Starship launches and reusability demonstrations
- New major government or commercial launch contracts
Management & Leadership
Elon Musk serves as the CEO, CTO, and Chairman, leading Space Exploration Technologies Corp. Bret W Johnsen is the Chief Financial Officer, overseeing the company's financial operations. Gwynne Shotwell holds the position of President and COO, managing daily operations.
What They Make
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) designs, manufactures, and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft. Its primary customers are government agencies (e.g., NASA, military), commercial satellite operators, and private individuals/companies seeking space transportation and internet services.
End Markets
Revenue Drivers
Why Is It Priced Like This?
Why Customers Pay
What we use instead: revenue growth and gross profit (EV/Sales, EV/Gross profit), cash runway and dilution — computed from the figures this company does report, shown on this page. Those numbers are unaffected by the missing cash-flow data.
The market is pricing Space Exploration Technologies Corp. based on expectations of significant future revenue growth, as indicated by the modeled stage-1 growth of +15.0%. The 'FCFFree Cash Flow (FCF) — Operating cash flow minus capital spending: cash left after a company covers operating costs, taxes and interest and reinvests in the business — but BEFORE repaying debt principal or paying dividends. The cash actually available to investors.
Why it matters: A company can show big profits on paper while burning through cash. FCF is what actually fills the bank account.
Reference: Healthy mature businesses convert 8–15% of revenue into FCF · Growth companies often negative
Full explanation → negative' flag suggests investors are focusing on the company's long-term potential and cash runway rather than current profitability. The market may be assigning value to the future potential of Starship's fully reusable launch system, which is not in the model, or the long-term monetization of its Starlink satellite internet constellation, which is also not fully captured by current cash flows.
Business Model & Valuation
How They Make Money
The company primarily funds itself through equity raises and revenue from its various services, as indicated by the 'FCFFree Cash Flow (FCF) — Operating cash flow minus capital spending: cash left after a company covers operating costs, taxes and interest and reinvests in the business — but BEFORE repaying debt principal or paying dividends. The cash actually available to investors.
Why it matters: A company can show big profits on paper while burning through cash. FCF is what actually fills the bank account.
Reference: Healthy mature businesses convert 8–15% of revenue into FCF · Growth companies often negative
Full explanation → negative' flag and the absence of dividend or buyback information.
Growth / Revenue DCF
This is the model the pipeline would normally apply to a company like this. Its output failed our checks here, so no intrinsic value is published; the notes below are context, not a valuation.
Show advanced inputs
| Revenue Growth | 15.0% |
What this model does NOT do: this is a consolidated owner-earnings cash-flow model. Standalone segment assumptions: none. It does not project product, services and recurring/cloud lines independently; their combined effect is embedded in the historical revenue and cash-flow trend the model extrapolates. The calculator above can only approximate a segment's impact through the single consolidated growth rate — it cannot model any one line separately. For a true segment-level view, build a separate model from the company's segment disclosures.
Maturity & Competitive Position
Moat Signals
Geography & Markets
Geographic Risks
Market Signals
These are timing signals, not value signals — they describe the stock's recent price behavior, not what the business is worth. Use them for the "the thesis looks good, but is now the moment?" question. Each tile below explains what it's saying.
Why it matters: Short-term contrarian indicator. Extreme readings often precede mean reversion, though not always.
Reference: 30–70 normal · >70 overbought · <30 oversold
Full explanation → (14)58.3NeutralMomentum is balanced — neither overbought nor oversold.
Why it matters: When the fast line crosses above the slow line, short-term momentum is turning up; below, turning down. A timing cue, not a value signal.
Reference: Line above signal = bullish momentum · below = bearish
Full explanation →BullishLine above signalThe fast trend is above the slow trend — short-term momentum is currently upward.
Technicals describe price, not the business. A great company can have a "bearish" tape (a buying chance) and a weak one a "bullish" tape (a trap). Pair these with the valuation and health sections above.
QUALITY
Data Quality & Risk Flags (4 notes — click to expand/collapse)
Guardrail Notes (4)
- FCF negative: revenue/margin growth model projects future cash flows from revenue trajectory.
- INVARIANT: weighted IV is non-positive. Model may not be appropriate.
- Model implies no positive equity value under these assumptions. Valuation is speculative/low-confidence.
- Extreme valuation gap (P/IV withheld — see the note above): result may be dominated by model assumptions, share count issues, or sector-specific dynamics. Treat as low confidence.
FINANCIALS
Financial Statements (5-year tables — click to expand)
From Space Exploration Technologies Corp's SEC filings (EDGAR).
Similar companies worth a look
Same sector and industry, similar fundamentals shape. Verify everything yourself — this list is computed mechanically and does not reflect our judgment about whether any of these are a good investment.
The questions people ask about SPCX
Is Space Exploration Technologies Corp (SPCX) a good stock to buy?
We do not publish a single fair value for Space Exploration Technologies Corp, because one number would not be reliable for this business (the page explains why). Judge it on its financial-health checks, its record and what insiders are doing, all shown here from SEC filings. This is educational research from SEC filings, not investment advice.
Is Space Exploration Technologies Corp (SPCX) overvalued?
A single fair-value number is not reliable for Space Exploration Technologies Corp, so we do not call it overvalued or undervalued. The page shows how the company's finances look and what insiders are doing instead. This is educational research from SEC filings, not investment advice.
Where do these numbers come from?
From Space Exploration Technologies Corp's own SEC filings (10-K and 10-Q), Form 4 insider filings and daily market prices. Every figure on the page links to how it was calculated, and the model's weak spots are listed next to its results.