Tesla, Inc. (TSLA) Stock Analysis
Tesla, Inc.
▾ What's in the 54/100 risk score? (higher = riskier)
Contributions (weight × component score) sum to the total. This near-term score now includes fundamental health (leverage, FCF trend, DCF applicability). It excludes the the Altman Z score, whose retained-earnings input this filer does not report separately, which relies on a proxied (estimated) input. See the Financial Health section for the full balance-sheet read.
How to read TSLA
TSLA generates real cash flow, but the DCF here is a low-confidence estimate — the value is sensitive to how we normalize cash flow, cyclicality, and secular/industry risk. Treat the DCF as one input, then pressure-test it against the reverse-DCF, leverage, and the operating trends below.
-
1
The verdict + intrinsic value (our DCF) ↓
Our estimate of what a share is worth, versus today's price.
-
2
Reverse-DCF + the interactive calculator ↓
See the growth the price assumes, then flex every assumption yourself to pressure-test it.
-
3
Football field + peers ↓
A cross-check across methods and against comparable companies.
What cash-flow improvement must the market believe? Reverse DCF — Instead of asking "what is this stock worth?", asks "what growth rate is the current market price already assuming?"
Why it matters: It crystallizes the bull thesis as a single number you can argue with. If the market expects 40% growth for 10 years and you do not believe that, the stock is overvalued.
Reference: 10–15% = sustainable for strong companies · 20–25% = exceptional · 30%+ = historically very rare
Reverse DCF treats today's price as correct and solves for the cash-flow path that justifies it. For a cyclical, read the result as the annual improvement in through-cycle free cash flow the price requires — which could come from higher realized commodity prices, margin recovery, lower input costs, more volume, or reduced capex, not just organic growth. The starting base is our normalized mid-cycle median, not last year's number.
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 → must improve by:
▾ Exactly how this 10-year figure is computed
Forecast length: 10 years, single flat growth rate (no fade)
Terminal growth after year 10: 2.5%
Discount rate: 15.0% (the rate the model used)
Price used: $342.27 — the live price shown on this page (not frozen)
Method: solve for the constant annual growth rate that makes the discounted 10-year FCF stream + terminal value equal today's price.
Above 50% CAGR for 10 years has essentially never happened at scale. The current price reflects extreme optimism, hype, or both.
For reference: Historically near-impossible — sustaining 30%+ cash-flow growth for a decade at scale is exceedingly rare.
▾ How we computed this · Reality check thresholds · Assumptions
- Starting FCF/share: $1.19 (normalized multi-year median)
- Discount RateDiscount Rate — The annual return you demand for taking single-stock risk instead of buying a safe Treasury or index fund.
Why it matters: Higher discount rate = stricter valuation (a stock has to produce more cash to be worth holding). Lower = more generous.
Reference: 8–12% is standard · 9–10% matches S&P 500 historical return · Below 7% is illogical for single-stock risk
Full explanation →: 15.0% — standard 8-12%; 9-10% matches S&P 500 historical return - Terminal Growth RateTerminal Growth Rate — The growth rate we assume the company holds forever, after the explicit 10-year forecast period ends.
Why it matters: It anchors the long-tail value. Cannot mathematically exceed long-term GDP growth or the company eventually becomes larger than the global economy.
Reference: 2–3% (matches long-term US GDP growth) · Above 4% is mathematically problematic
Full explanation →: 2.5% — matches long-term GDP growth - Forecast horizon: 10 years explicit + terminal perpetuity
| ≤ 0% | Priced for decline — likely undervalued OR dying business |
| 5-12% | Reasonable; sustainable for quality businesses |
| 12-18% | Demanding — strong execution required |
| 18-25% | Exceptional — few companies sustain for a decade |
| 25-35% | Heroic — historically very rare |
| 35%+ | Borderline impossible at scale |
Sustaining 30%+ cash-flow growth for a full decade at scale is exceedingly rare — the bar is brutally high.
Use the interactive calculator below to change the discount rate, growth and terminal-growth assumptions and watch the value move.
Football field: where does the price sit?
Different valuation methods produce different fair-value ranges depending on assumptions. Plotting them together lets you see at a glance whether the current price is reasonable across approaches, or only one specific lens.
Industry multiples sourced from: broad market average (sector unknown). See the Peer Basket section below for the peer comparison and its limited-comparables caveat.
⚠ We found only 1 genuine same-industry (Auto Manufacturers) comparable — fewer than the 4 we require for a reliable median. So we do not derive a peer-implied share value here. Read the multiples as rough context only.
How does TSLA stack up against its closest peers?
Ideally we compare TSLA only to same-industry peers, but too few exist in our universe right now, so the basket below mixes in broader-sector names. Treat the multiples as rough context, not a valuation. For a leveraged business, FCF yield (in the table) is 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.
Bold middle number = median peer. Half the peers trade above it, half below. Based on the single available name (broad — see caveat) we could price — with one company there is no median, so read it as a single data point.
⚠️ 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 (1)
| Ticker | Company | Industry | Mcap | EV/Sales | EV/GP | EV/EBIT | FCF Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TM | TOYOTA MOTOR CORP/ | Auto Manufacturers | $2.31T | — | — | — | 3.4% |
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 →
We can't produce a trustworthy Altman Z here: retained earnings weren't separately reported in our data, so a core input would have to be fabricated. Rather than show a categorical "distress" verdict from an invented number, we mark it unavailable. Judge financial health from the leverage, cash position, and the measurable Piotroski checks instead.
Read with caution for this industry. Automakers (and airlines) run a large captive finance arm, which inflates total assets and liabilities and depresses Altman Z — it routinely reads "distress" even for investment-grade names with full access to capital markets. Treat it as one input, not a literal bankruptcy probability. Weigh it against the company's cash position, near-term debt maturities, and where it sits in the economic cycle.
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 checks — what passed, what didn't (and what we couldn't measure)
-
✓ Positive net incomeNet income $3,794.0M in the latest year.
-
✓ Positive operating cash flowOperating cash flow $14,747.0M (was $14,923.0M the prior year).
-
✓ Cash flow backs up reported profitOperating cash flow $14,747.0M vs net income $3,794.0M.
-
✗ Return on assets improvingReturn on assets 2.8% vs 5.8% a year ago.Why this matters: Is the company squeezing more profit out of each dollar of assets than last year? Rising = getting more efficient; falling = the opposite.
-
✗ Debt load (vs assets)Long-term debt is 3.6% of assets vs 2.6% a year ago ($5,015.0M now).Why this matters: Rising debt relative to assets means more risk and more cash going to interest instead of shareholders. Falling debt is a sign of strengthening.
-
✓ Short-term liquidity (current ratio)Current ratio 2.16x vs 2.02x a year ago.
-
✗ Share count (dilution)Share count rose 0.9% (3,498.0M → 3,528.0M year-over-year).Why this matters: Issuing lots of new shares splits the pie into more pieces, shrinking your slice. Stable or falling share count protects existing owners.
-
✓ Pricing power (gross margin)Gross margin 18.0% vs 17.9% a year ago.
-
✗ Sales per asset (asset turnover)Asset turnover 0.69x vs 0.80x a year ago.Why this matters: Asset turnover measures how much revenue each dollar of assets generates. Rising = more productive use of the asset base.
Missing data is never counted as a pass or a fail — it's shown as n/a and excluded from the denominator. Each check compares the company against its own prior year.
What if you assume different inputs?
Here's where we land — and what happens if you change the assumptions. Drag the sliders to set your own Discount RateDiscount Rate — The annual return you demand for taking single-stock risk instead of buying a safe Treasury or index fund.
Why it matters: Higher discount rate = stricter valuation (a stock has to produce more cash to be worth holding). Lower = more generous.
Reference: 8–12% is standard · 9–10% matches S&P 500 historical return · Below 7% is illogical for single-stock risk
Full explanation → (the annual return you demand for single-stock risk) and terminal growth; the value updates live so you can see whether the stock looks cheaper or richer. The discount rate starts at 15.0%, the figure our model used for TSLA. Open Advanced to also change beta, growth and the rate path.
Note: at default inputs this calculator mirrors the headline model's three-scenario weighting (conservative/base/optimistic, 40/35/25), so its opening value should land close to the headline intrinsic value of $12.65. A small gap is rounding; a large one would be a data problem — and we check for it below.
15.0% — beta-based (CAPM), from this stock's BetaBeta — How much the stock moves when the overall market moves. 1.0 = moves with the market; 1.5 = moves 50% more than the market.
Why it matters: Higher beta = more volatile = should demand higher discount rate. Low beta stocks (utilities, consumer staples) move less.
Reference: Most stocks 0.5–1.5 · Defensives ~0.3 · High-vol tech ~1.5–2.0
Full explanation → of 1.90. The safe Treasury rate plus a premium scaled by how much more (or less) volatile the stock is than the market.
9.0% — sector/quality tier. A simpler hurdle set by industry and business durability: lower for stable, wide-moat companies; higher for speculative or micro-caps.
The headline value and this calculator start at 15.0% — the beta-based rate. Drag the slider to the other rate to see the full range.
+2,605.7%
At the default assumptions the flat path lands near our published value of $12.65. Move any slider to recompute it with your own.
—
⚙ Advanced — tinker with every input (beta, growth, rate path, margin → full intrinsic value)
Tesla is deep_overvalued; the price is 2374.5% ABOVE intrinsic valueIntrinsic Value — Our DCF model's estimate of what each share is mathematically worth based on projected cash flows.
Why it matters: Compare to current price. Below IV = potentially undervalued. Above IV = priced for growth that must actually happen.
Reference: Model-derived; quality depends on data and assumptions.
Full explanation → (a 2374.5% premium). The market is paying up for significant future growth and optionality, potentially assigning value to the development of full self-driving technology and robotaxi services, which are not captured in backward-looking models. The biggest risk that our model's base assumptions prove too high is that the gross margin continues compressing from 25.3% to 18%, rather than stabilizing or expanding.
As of 22 days ago
Anatomy of a share
What you're buying per share. Bars are at the same scale so you can see the relative size of revenue, costs, cash flow, and debt — not just read them in a table.
What's free cash flow / what do these mean?
Revenue per share — how much the business earns from customers, divided by the number of shares outstanding. Top of the income statement.
Earnings per share — profit left after operating costs, interest, and taxes, per share. Two versions appear on this page and are not interchangeable: GAAP diluted EPS uses the company's weighted-average diluted share count during the reporting period (this is the "earnings" in "price-to-earnings"); net income per current share divides annual net income by today's share count. They differ whenever the share count has changed.
Owner-earnings free cash flow per share — the cash the business produces for shareholders. Savng's owner-earnings FCF subtracts capital expenditures and stock-based compensation from operating cash flow (SBC is a real dilution cost even though it's non-cash). This is deliberately more conservative than "standard" FCF, which subtracts only capital expenditures — so our figure is lower than the headline FCF you'll see elsewhere. FCF funds dividends, buybacks, debt repayment, and acquisitions; a company can report positive earnings yet negative FCF.
Debt per share — total interest-bearing borrowings divided by shares. High debt-per-share next to thin FCF-per-share is a fragility signal.
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.
- Gross margin trend in upcoming quarters
- Growth rate of automotive sales volume
- Trend in long-term debt levels
The trend, in plain numbers (2024 → 2025)
Straight from the financial statements — no model, no opinion. For a small or unprofitable company, the direction of these numbers usually tells you more than any single valuation.
- Free cash flow rose to $3.40B.
- Revenue fell -3% to $94.83B.
- Net income fell -46% to $3.79B.
Roughly flat: Gross margin held to 18% (+0 pts).
Management & Leadership
Elon Musk is the co-founder, CEO, and Chairman of Tesla, Inc., a role he has held since 2008. He oversees product design, engineering, and global manufacturing. Other key executives include Zachary Kirkhorn as Chief Financial Officer and Tom Zhu as Senior Vice President, Automotive.
What They Make
Tesla, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, leases, and sells electric vehicles, energy generation and storage systems. Its primary paying customers are consumers and businesses purchasing or leasing these vehicles and energy solutions.
End Markets
Revenue Drivers
Why Is It Priced Like This?
Why Customers Pay
The market prices Tesla at a premium of +2374.5% above the model's intrinsic valueIntrinsic Value — Our DCF model's estimate of what each share is mathematically worth based on projected cash flows.
Why it matters: Compare to current price. Below IV = potentially undervalued. Above IV = priced for growth that must actually happen.
Reference: Model-derived; quality depends on data and assumptions.
Full explanation →, implying a 77.5% annual per-share cash flow growth, significantly higher than the model's 8.0%. This optimism is despite gross margin compressing from 25.3% to 18% and long-term debt rising from $3166M to $5015M. The market may be assigning value to the potential for widespread adoption of autonomous driving technology and the expansion into new energy markets, which is not in the model.
Three Scenarios, Weighted
| Scenario | IV | vs Price | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | $11.08 | -96.8% | 40% |
| Base | $12.84 | -96.2% | 35% |
| Optimistic | $14.88 | -95.7% | 25% |
| Weighted | $12.65 | -96.3% | 100% |
Business Model & Valuation
How They Make Money
Tesla primarily funds its operations and growth through retained earnings and debt, with long-term debt rising from $3166M to $5015M.
Normalized FCF Low
Cyclical/commodity sector (Auto Manufacturers): normalized FCF uses 5-year median to smooth peak/trough distortions.
▾ Why is DCF applicability "Low" for TSLA?
- The latest single-year FCF sits materially below the normalized figure the model uses, a sign of cyclicality (e.g. the industry demand cycle).
- Individual business-segment drivers are not forecast separately — the model works off consolidated cash flow only.
Because of this, we headline the more conservative discount rate and urge you to weight the reverse-DCF, leverage, and operating trends alongside the DCF.
Show advanced inputs
| RevenueGrowth | 15.2% |
| EpsGrowth | -9.9% |
| HistoricalFcfGrowth | 4.1% |
| SectorDefault | 8.0% |
| SectorDefaultSource | Consumer Cyclical sector default |
| BestEstimate | 13.1% |
| Method | blend(70% revenue_cagr, 30% sector) |
| GrowthBasis | total |
What this model does NOT do: this is a consolidated owner-earnings FCF model. Standalone segment assumptions: none. It does not project its revenue segments 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
Revenue is growing at 15.2%/yr over 4 years, from $53823M to $94827M.
Geography & Markets
Tesla operates globally, with significant sales and manufacturing presence in North America, Europe, and Asia, particularly China. Exact geographic segment split is not available in current filings.
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)28.0OversoldHeavily sold off recently — sometimes a bounce setup, sometimes a falling knife.
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 →BearishLine below signalThe fast trend is below the slow trend — short-term momentum is currently downward.
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 (5 notes — click to expand/collapse)
Guardrail Notes (5)
- Cyclical sector: using normalized cash flow (median OCF minus estimated maintenance capex).
- Median OCF: $14.72B, est. maintenance capex: $8.53B, normalized SBC: $2.00B, normalized owner-earnings FCF: $4.20B.
- Price is 24.8x model IV - market may be pricing optionality, narrative catalysts, or margin expansion beyond what trailing cash flows support.
- Cyclical commodity producer: price is 24.8x the through-cycle free-cash-flow value ($12.65). FCF-DCF structurally understates capital-intensive miners/energy — use the EV/Sales peer lens and the commodity-price outlook, not this single number.
- Extreme valuation gap (P/IV 24.75): 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 Tesla, Inc.'s SEC filings (EDGAR).
Income (5yr)
| Year | Revenue | Net Income | EPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 94.8B | 3.8B | $1.08 |
| 2024 | 97.7B | 7.1B | $2.04 |
| 2023 | 96.8B | 15.0B | $4.30 |
| 2022 | 81.5B | 12.6B | $3.62 |
| 2021 | 53.8B | 5.5B | $1.63 |
Cash Flow (5yr)
| Year | Operating CF | CapEx | − SBC | Free Cash Flow |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 14.7B | 8.5B | 2.8B | 3.4B |
| 2024 | 14.9B | 11.3B | 2.0B | 1.6B |
| 2023 | 13.3B | 8.9B | 1.8B | 2.5B |
| 2022 | 14.7B | 7.2B | 1.6B | 6.0B |
| 2021 | 11.5B | 6.5B | 2.1B | 2.9B |
How we define FCF: operating cash flow − capital expenditure − stock-based compensation (owner-earnings basis — SBC is a real cost to shareholders even though it's non-cash). Latest year: 14.7B − 8.5B − 2.8B (stock-based comp) = 3.4B. This is the same owner-earnings FCF definition the valuation model uses, though the DCF's starting value is a normalized multi-year median, not this single year.
Balance Sheet
| Total Assets | 137.8B |
| Total Liabilities | 54.9B |
| Equity | 82.1B |
| Total Debt | 6.6B |
Recent video coverage
Top recent YouTube videos by date. We don't endorse the channels — these are surfaced for context.
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.