SpaceX与OpenAI 齐 IPO 万亿估值几何？

Author: BiyaNews

On May 20, 2026, SpaceX officially submitted its S-1 registration statement to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), revealing audited financial data after merging with xAI. Almost simultaneously, OpenAI was preparing to secretly file its IPO prospectus. Two giants reshaping the aerospace and artificial intelligence industries are testing an unanswered question in the public market: Are investors willing to support AI infrastructure narratives at a trillion-dollar valuation?

Two IPO filings, same market window

SpaceX submitted its S-1 confidentially on April 1, 2026, and publicly disclosed it on May 20. The document shows that after completing a full stock acquisition of xAI in February 2026, the merged entity achieved revenue of $18.67 billion in 2025, a net loss of $4.94 billion, and an adjusted EBITDA of $6.58 billion. According to Bloomberg and Reuters, its IPO valuation target range is between $1.75 trillion and $2 trillion, with a potential raise of up to $75 billion. SpaceX plans to go public on Nasdaq under the ticker SPCX on June 12, with Goldman Sachs acting as lead underwriter, joined by Morgan Stanley, BofA Securities, Citigroup, and J.P. Morgan.

On the OpenAI side, the March 2026 funding round valued the company at $852 billion post-money, with participation from Amazon, Nvidia, SoftBank, and others. CFO Sarah Friar confirmed in a January 2026 blog that the company's annualized revenue run rate at the end of 2025 had surpassed $20 billion, though actual full-year revenue was estimated at around $13.1 billion. This discrepancy is critical: audited full-year financials will be publicly disclosed for the first time in the S-1. On May 18, a jury ruled that Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI was barred by California's statute of limitations; Musk announced an appeal, but the ruling temporarily cleared legal clouds over the IPO process.

Financial data comparison: the divide between audited and estimated figures

The table consolidates audited data from SpaceX's S-1, statements confirmed by OpenAI's CFO, and estimates from industry analysts. OpenAI’s forward-looking revenue projections are based on an end-of-year ARR of $20 billion, not from the submitted prospectus. Both companies’ IPO valuation targets are based on media-reported figures; final offering terms will be disclosed in their respective public S-1s.

Four panels reveal structural differences between the two IPOs. Panel 1 distinguishes audited data from estimates: SpaceX’s 2025 revenue of $18.67 billion comes from the S-1 audit, while OpenAI’s $13.1 billion is an estimate of full-year actual revenue, with an end-of-year annualized run rate of about $20 billion from CFO Friar’s January disclosure. Panel 2 shows that, at the midpoint of the reported valuation range of $1.75 trillion to $2 trillion, SpaceX would rank just behind Nvidia ($5.2 trillion), Alphabet ($4.8 trillion), Apple ($4.3 trillion), Microsoft ($3.1 trillion), and Amazon ($2.9 trillion). Panel 3 indicates that SpaceX’s net loss mainly stems from the SpaceXAI business line, while Starlink and launch services together contributed $15.5 billion in revenue and are now independently profitable. Panel 4 shows that OpenAI’s estimated cash burn trajectory (projected by Sacra to reach $27 billion in 2026) diverges sharply from its revenue growth curve, with breakeven not expected before 2029–2030.

What each company is selling

SpaceX’s IPO prospectus is essentially a capital-intensive asset listing for Starlink. In 2025, satellite internet contributed $11.4 billion, accounting for 61% of the merged revenue, with over 10 million subscribers by February 2026. Quilty Space estimates that Starlink users will grow from 9 million at the end of 2025 to 16.8 million by the end of 2026. Launch services contributed $4.1 billion, supported by a $5.9 billion Pentagon NSSL Phase 3 contract through 2029. Both businesses are contract-backed with clear growth paths.

The issue is SpaceXAI. This business line generated $3.2 billion in revenue in 2025 but recorded a $2.47 billion operating loss in Q1 2026, becoming the main drag on the merger’s profitability. Anthropic has purchased compute capacity at $1.25 billion per month for SpaceX Colossus 1 data centers, under contracts extending to 2029, providing a well-known anchor client, but the business remains in early capital consumption stage. The S-1’s risk factors section admits that Grok chatbot faces investigations by eight regulatory agencies over issues including unauthorized synthetic images.

OpenAI presents a starkly different value proposition. The company has about 900 million weekly active users and 50 million paid subscriptions, with annualized revenue run rate rising from about $6 billion in 2024 to over $20 billion at the end of 2025. Bloomberg reports internal estimates that this growth will continue to 2030, reaching over $280 billion in revenue. Structural headwinds are also significant: after a capital restructuring in October 2025, Microsoft holds about 27% of the converted shares and gains rights through a revenue-sharing agreement until 2030. Although the total payout cap was renegotiated to $38 billion, Sacra estimates that about $6 billion will still need to be paid in 2026. OpenAI’s gross margin is constrained by inference compute costs, maintaining around 33%, with projected inference costs reaching $14.1 billion in 2026. Cash flow breakeven is not expected before 2029.

The debate investors need to resolve isn’t whether these companies are growing, but what the public market is asked to capitalize: Starlink’s operating profit, xAI’s infrastructure consumption, OpenAI’s revenue velocity, and the economics of large-scale AI computing in the future.

Market context: unprecedented fundraising scale

The scale of these offerings has no direct comparison in modern capital markets. Saudi Aramco’s 2019 IPO raised about $26 billion, still the largest single IPO to date. SpaceX’s reported fundraising target of up to $75 billion, if achieved at the upper end, would be nearly three times that of Aramco. Goldman Sachs is leading both deals; NBC’s review of the filings notes that SpaceX’s offering involves 23 banks and investment institutions.

Macroeconomic headwinds are identifiable. Federal Reserve policies and high long-term discount rates compress terminal value assumptions for unprofitable growth companies—precisely the category SpaceX’s AI business and OpenAI fall into. The $122 billion funding round in March 2026 indicates strong demand from institutional investors at private valuation levels. But translating that demand into higher public IPO valuation targets requires successful roadshows and a narrative that concretely addresses profitability timelines.

Valuation multiple tensions are the missing analytical bridge in these filings. SpaceX’s IPO range implies a multiple of about 95 to 107 times 2025 revenue on a merged basis, well above any comparable aerospace or satellite company. OpenAI’s over $1 trillion target implies a multiple of roughly 75 times estimated 2025 full-year revenue. Both multiples are difficult to justify solely through traditional earnings yield analysis. Both require investors to accept that the connectivity of AI infrastructure and the adoption of AI software are sufficiently large in the long term to justify current losses at trillion-dollar scale capitalizations. The full S-1 will be the first test of these assumptions under public disclosure standards.

Market scenarios and key focus points

SpaceX’s S-1 was made public on May 20, 2026. Key data points to scrutinize in the prospectus include: Starlink’s unit economics and ARPU trajectory, Starship development capital commitments and timelines, SpaceXAI’s standalone cash flow and breakeven path, and governance structures involving dual-class voting and control provisions. Roadshows are expected to begin the week of June 4, with pricing targeted for June 11, and first trading day on June 12. These dates are reported targets, not yet confirmed. The gap between disclosed financials and valuation ranges will be a focal point of investor debates during the roadshow.

For OpenAI, the secret filing means the public S-1 will likely be available only 60 to 90 days after submission, possibly in late July or August 2026. Key disclosures investors will seek include: Microsoft’s revenue-sharing restructuring and its impact on reported revenue and net income; governance and equity mechanisms within the OpenAI Foundation; capital expenditure timelines related to Stargate and other infrastructure commitments; and the specific assumptions behind the company’s profitability timeline. Musk’s appeal will proceed through the California appellate system; without an initial injunction restoring prior litigation uncertainty, this procedural risk will diminish over time.

Whether both companies can complete their listings on schedule is itself a test of whether the market can absorb sufficient liquidity for AI infrastructure equity. The last private market valuations for these firms differ significantly from their public market clearing prices. If any offering price falls notably below the reported target range, or if first-day performance is weak, the impact on other AI IPO candidates could be substantial—reportedly, Anthropic has already engaged in early discussions with Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Morgan Stanley about its own listing.

From a professional perspective, I believe the current market environment poses a double challenge for such mega IPOs: on one hand, investors must digest unprecedented scale of fundraising; on the other, the uncertainty in Federal Reserve policy paths exerts greater pressure on terminal value discounting for growth stocks. Historical data from the dot-com bubble era shows similar capital inflows of comparable scale, but infrastructure costs then were far lower than today’s AI compute investments. Historically, when IPO fundraising exceeds about 10% of daily market turnover, first-day and subsequent performance tend to be more volatile. Investors should pay close attention to feedback signals during roadshows from institutional investors and the degree of discounting relative to the report ranges, as these will reflect genuine market demand. Of course, investment decisions should also consider individual circumstances—markets always carry uncertainties.