Wall Street is deploying unusual yardsticks in an effort to place a price on SpaceX as the company advances toward a public listing. At least one major institutional investor is reportedly setting the company’s valuation against richly valued technology and infrastructure names - rather than against conventional aerospace or telecom peers - to support a $1.75 trillion figure that could make the offering among the largest ever.
According to a source familiar with the company’s thinking, the investor comparisons range from market darlings with strong secular growth narratives, like Palantir Technologies, to firms tied to the AI data-center buildout such as GE Vernova and Vertiv. The approach underscores the difficulty of valuing a business that combines sizable space operations with an internet connectivity arm - and that lacks close publicly traded equivalents.
SpaceX has confidentially filed for a U.S. initial public offering and is scheduled to host an analyst day on April 21. The firm is on track to raise roughly $75 billion in the IPO this year, according to information reviewed by investors involved in the process. Those backing the company argue that traditional peers fail to capture the scale of the opportunity SpaceX is pursuing.
At a $1.75 trillion valuation, SpaceX would appear expensive by many conventional standards. Comparisons to established aerospace contractors such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin - whose United Launch Alliance joint venture is a direct competitor in launch services - produce far lower multiples. Similarly, when valuing the company’s Starlink connectivity business, legacy telecom providers like AT&T and Verizon are the reflexive benchmarks, but some investors say those incumbents are anchored to aging fixed infrastructure and mature, slower-growth domestic markets.
Investors who favor technology and infrastructure comparables argue that what matters most are expected cash flows, growth profiles and risk characteristics, not merely shared industry labels. In this view, companies that have been rewarded with very high valuations because of secular growth dynamics and asset-light models provide a better mirror for SpaceX’s potential than legacy peers whose businesses are structurally different.
That mentality helps explain why some backers point to Palantir as a more relevant analogue for Starlink’s economic model. They cite Palantir’s secular growth trajectory, elevated returns on invested capital, margin profile and relatively asset-light structure as qualities that support premium multiples - traits SpaceX investors say are applicable to the connectivity business. Palantir has traded at valuations such as 43 times expected revenue and 75 times earnings, according to market observers. Proponents contend that such multiples demonstrate the market’s willingness to pay outsized prices for firms with compelling platform economics.
Nevertheless, even those high benchmarks do not fully reconcile with the numbers implied by a $1.75 trillion price. Using PitchBook’s estimates, the valuation would equate to roughly 110 times forecasted revenue for 2025 - a multiple substantially above even some of the market’s most expensive technology names. PitchBook analyst Franco Granda warned that investors are effectively paying a platform premium today in anticipation of infrastructure-monopoly earnings in the future.
SpaceX’s management has framed the market opportunity in large terms. On a recent conference call with IPO bankers, CFO Bret Johnsen described the space economy as potentially reaching $370 billion and called the firm’s connectivity business a possible $1.6 trillion market, according to two people who participated on the call. Sources close to the company characterized the growth potential as a central pillar of the valuation case. SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment.
The debate over comparables extends to the rocket manufacturing and launch side of the business. SpaceX investors point to demonstrable operational achievements - the development of reusable launch systems, reductions in per-launch unit costs and growing commercial demand for launch capacity - as reasons to demand multiples above those of entrenched defense and aerospace names. Lockheed Martin has recently traded at roughly 20 times next year’s expected earnings, an example investors say does not capture SpaceX’s differentiated cost and scale advantages. Boeing’s valuation, investors note, has been influenced by its positioning as a turnaround story.
In place of classic aerospace peers, some backers favor industrial and infrastructure names that have benefited from AI-driven investment. GE Vernova and Vertiv have both seen their valuations lifted by expectations around data-center spending, and supporters draw a parallel between SpaceX’s runway of demand for launch and connectivity and the surge in need for data-center “picks and shovels.” Yet these preferred comparables remain imperfect matches. Market figures cited by investors show GE Vernova trading at about 30 times expected cash flow and roughly four times last year’s revenue, while Vertiv has changed hands at levels near 19 times expected operating profit and six times last year’s sales.
Smaller funds taking part in SpaceX’s pre-IPO rounds describe a different dynamic. Jay Bala, a portfolio manager at Toronto-based AIP which oversees roughly $100 million in assets and holds a significant concentration in SpaceX, said his firm is largely relying on the due diligence performed by the largest investors. Bala noted that detailed financial disclosure can be limited for a private company and conceded the challenge of obtaining precise figures: "You can only get so much. It’s hard to get numbers sometimes." He said smaller investors are effectively piggybacking on the analysis of mega-funds rather than independently re-running every valuation assumption.
Valuation experts and market practitioners alike acknowledge the complexity of pricing the company. Aswath Damodaran, a valuation professor, remarked that the company’s capacity to launch satellites at scale and at relatively low cost is a rare advantage - and that such uniqueness complicates direct comparisons. "Pricing is always going to be messy here," he observed, noting that much of the current pricing conversation reflects investors seeking rationales for positions they have already taken.
Damodaran added that a significant portion of the narrative around SpaceX’s valuation may be driven by investor sentiment and momentum - an inclination among buyers to favor the story and then find metrics to justify the purchase. That approach, he suggested, risks presenting pricing rationalizations that are more reflective of pre-existing conviction than of traditional valuation discipline.
As SpaceX moves toward a public debut, the debate over the appropriate comparables and multiples is likely to continue. Bankers and investors face the challenge of translating a privately-held company’s strategic ambition and operational distinctiveness into public-market expectations, while weighing whether the premium multiples sought by some backers are supportable by future financial performance. For market participants across aerospace, telecommunications and AI infrastructure supply chains, the outcome will influence how investors re-rate companies operating at the intersections of those sectors.