Elon Musk’s space company SpaceX is heading toward the largest IPO in economic history — and a valuation that is remarkable even by the standards of the historically expensive US stock market. According to figures circulated so far, the accompanying banks are targeting a market capitalization of $1.75 to $2 trillion, with an issuance volume of up to $75 billion. Set against this is a 2025 annual revenue of around $15 to $16 billion — generated primarily from the Starlink satellite internet service and the rocket launch business.

Calculating these figures against each other yields a price-to-sales ratio (P/S) of approximately 100 to 130. For comparison: the broad S&P 500 has historically moved in the range of 2 to 3. Even the most expensive stocks in arguably the hottest equity market segment of all — the “Magnificent 7” comprising Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft — come nowhere close to this territory.

A multiple that fits no known category

The scale becomes clearer when compared with the current valuations of the seven most valuable US tech companies. Nvidia, the undisputed beneficiary of the AI boom, recently grew at 65 percent per year and generated revenue of around $216 billion in fiscal year 2026. At a market capitalization of approximately $4.6 trillion, that yields a P/S of around 21. That is already a historically high figure — yet it still falls short by a factor of 5 to 6 of what SpaceX, according to the leaked figures, intends to ask of investors.

Company	Market cap. (approx.)	Revenue (last 12 months, approx.)	Price-to-Sales Ratio (P/S)
SpaceX (targeted IPO)	$1.75–2.0 tn	$15–16 bn	≈ 110–130x
Nvidia	$4.6 tn	$216 bn	≈ 21x
Tesla	$1.5 tn	~$95 bn	≈ 16x
Microsoft	$2.9 tn	~$280 bn	≈ 10x
Apple	$3.5 tn	~$410 bn	≈ 9x
Meta	$1.5 tn	~$180 bn	≈ 8x
Alphabet	$3.3 tn	~$400 bn	≈ 8x
Amazon	$2.2 tn	~$650 bn	≈ 3.5x

Figures rounded, as of April 2026. P/S based on most recently reported annual revenues.

This means: SpaceX would enter the stock market with a revenue multiple approximately five to six times higher than Nvidia’s — and roughly thirty times higher than Amazon’s. Even the Tesla group, regularly criticized for its valuation and trading at around 200 times its earnings, looks positively down-to-earth when measured by revenue.

The Starlink effect and the xAI problem

The calculation becomes even more uncomfortable when the structure of SpaceX’s revenue is examined more closely. The lion’s share of the $15 to $16 billion now comes from Starlink, the satellite-based broadband internet service. Starlink is a classic telecom product — not a space moonshot, but a consumer and business subscription service with corresponding margins and competitive risks. Telecommunications providers are traditionally traded at multiples of between 1 and 4.

If Starlink is therefore valued at a market-standard telecom multiple and the pure rocket launch and launch vehicle revenue is considered in isolation, the basis for calculation shrinks drastically — and the implied multiple on the remaining space business climbs above 200. A figure for which there are simply no reliable reference points.

Also delicate: SpaceX also encompasses the two companies X (social media) and xAI (LLMs), whose revenue and growth are a matter of taste. Musk recently admitted that xAI has fallen behind competitors such as Google, Anthropic, and OpenAI in AI models; xAI is posting significant losses. As an IPO investor, you would be paying for that too.

The other side: why the banks will find buyers nonetheless

To be fair: the bulls’ arguments are not trivial. SpaceX is highly profitable, with earnings of around $8 billion on $15 billion in revenue — a margin of over 50 percent that is unique in the satellite industry. The company holds a near-monopoly on commercial heavy-lift launches with Falcon 9 and Starship, and Starlink is virtually without competition in the satellite broadband segment. Add to this the strategic potential — defense contracts, lunar missions, and long-term Mars projects — and a client list ranging from NASA and the Pentagon to European governments.

With their approach, the banks are therefore pricing in less the current revenue than the expectation that SpaceX will earn many times that amount in five to ten years. That is a permissible view — but one in which the margin of safety for investors is zero.

The retail investor twist: 30 percent for retail

The valuation debate is given an added edge by the information that SpaceX intends to reserve up to 30 percent of the offering for retail investors — roughly three times the amount typically seen in IPOs. CFO Bret Johnsen reportedly justified this step internally by saying that the Musk community had “supported the company incredibly for a long time” and that this should be “acknowledged.” A dedicated investor event for 1,500 selected retail investors is planned for June 11, with the prospectus set to be published at the end of May.

From an investor protection perspective, this is a double-edged story. On the one hand, it is democratizing when retail investors gain access to one of the most closely watched IPOs of all time — a privilege that in recent decades has almost always been reserved for institutional investors. On the other hand, it means that the group with, on average, the least analytical capacity receives a disproportionate share of an offering that — at least by classical valuation metrics — stands on historically thin ice. “Unprecedented demand” from the retail community, which the banks are reportedly counting on according to insiders, is no substitute for fundamental valuation.

An IPO built on trust

The SpaceX IPO will not be judged by classical metrics — the multiples are too far removed from any comparable group for that. It will be an IPO built on trust, carried by Musk’s track record, the company’s strategic status, and retail demand willing to pay significantly more than any institutional due diligence would recommend. Anyone who subscribes should be aware that what is being paid for is not today’s earnings, but a version of SpaceX that does not yet exist — and that historically, someone always ends up footing the bill for the difference.