For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Rocket Lab Corporation (RKLB) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.
Our current read (analysis of 2026-08-23): Designation Low · Gem Score -61 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality -13 · Value -100 · Sentiment 35 (timing only, not weighted)
Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable
reference-name attribute you can cite):
profile-header/price-overview— company profile, live quote, market capextended-analysis— the core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memofuture-predictions— our forward price-band predictionsmarket-narrative/ai-findings/gpt-critique— narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)- Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers):
price-history,income-trend,key-metrics,financials(statement tables),insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.
More for machine readers: site briefing at
/llms.txt ·
any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER ·
raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds);
every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.
Rocket Lab Corporation
RKLB NASDAQRocket Lab Corporation is a public aerospace and space company that provides end-to-end launch and spacecraft solutions for commercial, government, and defense customers. Its core activities include launch services, spacecraft design and manufacturing, satellite components, flight software, and on-orbit management. Rocket Lab’s product line centers on the Electron small orbital launch vehicle, the HASTE suborbital vehicle for hypersonic testing, the Photon spacecraft platform, and the larger Neutron launch vehicle under development. The company also supplies key space systems such as solar power products, separation systems, reaction wheels, star trackers, and other mission-enabling hardware. Headquartered in Long Beach, California and founded in 2006, Rocket Lab plays a significant role in the space economy by supporting satellite deployment, spacecraft integration, and mission operations across a wide range of orbital and suborbital applications.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): -0.37
Total Equity: $1.72B
Shares: 535,700,000
Total Debt: $253.96M
Cash: $828.66M
EBITDA: -$155.01M
Total Debt: $253.96M
Cash: $828.66M
Revenue: $601.80M
Shares: 535,700,000
Revenue: $601.80M
Revenue: $601.80M
Revenue: $601.80M
Total Equity: $1.72B
Tax Rate: 12.3%
Equity: $1.72B
Total Debt: $253.96M
Cash: $828.66M
Current Liabilities: $334.48M
Long-Term Debt: $253.96M
Total Debt: $253.96M
Total Equity: $1.72B
Shares: 535,700,000
Shares: 535,700,000
CapEx: -$156.29M
Shares: 535,700,000
Stock Price: $66.94
Net Income: -$198.21M
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 28, 2026 12:22am (26d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $62.2M | $211.0M | $244.6M | $436.2M | $601.8M |
| Cost of Revenue | $64.1M | $192.0M | $193.2M | $320.1M | $394.6M |
| Gross Profit | -$1.9M | $19.0M | $51.4M | $116.1M | $207.2M |
| Operating Expenses | $100.2M | $154.2M | $229.3M | $306.0M | $436.0M |
| Operating Income | -$102.1M | -$135.2M | -$177.9M | -$189.8M | -$228.8M |
| Net Income | -$117.3M | -$135.9M | -$182.6M | -$190.2M | -$198.2M |
| EBITDA | -$75.3M | -$114.3M | -$147.7M | -$151.7M | -$155.0M |
| EPS | $-0.56 | $-0.29 | $-0.38 | $-0.38 | $-0.37 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $-0.56 | $-0.29 | $-0.38 | $-0.38 | $-0.37 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 26, 2026 12:04am (28d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $691.0M | $242.5M | $162.5M | $271.0M | $828.7M |
| Total Current Assets | $774.8M | $662.3M | $476.7M | $692.6M | $1.4B |
| Total Assets | $980.8M | $989.1M | $941.2M | $1.2B | $2.3B |
| Current Liabilities | $96.3M | $162.9M | $223.4M | $339.5M | $334.5M |
| Long-Term Debt | $125.6M | $149.9M | $158.9M | $456.4M | $254.0M |
| Total Liabilities | $282.4M | $315.9M | $386.7M | $801.9M | $602.6M |
| Total Equity | $698.4M | $673.2M | $554.5M | $382.5M | $1.7B |
| Retained Earnings | -$305.0M | -$441.0M | -$623.5M | -$813.7M | -$1.0B |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 28, 2026 12:22am (26d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | -$71.8M | -$106.5M | -$98.9M | -$48.9M | -$165.5M |
| Capital Expenditure | -$25.7M | -$42.4M | -$54.7M | -$67.1M | -$156.3M |
| Free Cash Flow | -$97.5M | -$149.0M | -$153.6M | -$116.0M | -$321.8M |
| Acquisitions (net) | -$66.4M | -$65.8M | -$19.0M | $0 | -$132.4M |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividends Paid | — | — | — | — | — |
| Stock Buybacks | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Change in Cash | $638.1M | -$446.2M | -$79.4M | $108.9M | $558.2M |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Jul 28, 2026 12:22am (26d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | +239.0% | +15.9% | +78.3% | +38.0% |
| Gross Profit Growth | +1,103.2% | +170.7% | +125.9% | +78.4% |
| Operating Income Growth | -32.5% | -31.6% | -6.7% | -20.6% |
| Net Income Growth | -15.9% | -34.3% | -4.2% | -4.2% |
| EBITDA Growth | -51.7% | -29.2% | -2.7% | -2.2% |
Deep Analysis
Risk : Reward — if the last quarter repeats
Live · as of 2026-08-19 11:00Even the bull case prices 81% below today — the ratio here measures the model-vs-market gap, not payoff odds. Another quarter like the worst recent one costs 100%. Caveat: the company is pre-profit — scenario margins are a glide-path assumption, not a track record.
| Case | Growth | Margin | Fair value | vs price ($66.94) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bull — recovery | +109% | 14.3% | $12.62 | -81% |
| Base — stabilizes | +72% | 12.4% | $4.74 | -93% |
| Bear — keeps slipping | +36% | 10.5% | $1.37 | -98% |
| Stress — last quarter repeats | +63% | -21.5% | $0.00 | -100% |
Narrative Economics
market-narrative step).
Claude Reading
The raw tape first: RKLB did $601.8M in 2025 revenue versus $436.2M in 2024 (+38% YoY) and $244.6M in 2023 — so the two-year stack is real, but the deceleration from ~78% to 38% matters when you're paying 58x EV/sales. Gross margin expanded from 26.6% to 34.4% YoY, which is the single most important number in this file and the one that most justifies the multiple. But operating loss widened from -$189.8M to -$228.8M, and FCF deteriorated to -$321.8M with $156.3M capex — Neutron is eating the balance sheet. Cash of $828.7M against $321.8M annual burn is roughly 2.5 years of runway before a raise, and Neutron's first flight has already slipped multiple times. The Q1 2025 print of $122.6M was actually *down sequentially* from Q4 2024's $132.4M — the "decelerating quarterly trend" flag is not noise.
Where I disagree with the prior models: the synthesis calls this "High Conviction Required" and market-forces frames it as "Market Tailwinds" with caveats. Both are too soft. At $41.8B market cap on $601.8M of revenue, you are paying ~42x forward sales assuming ~65% growth to ~$1B in 2026 — which is a heroic assumption given Q1 went sequentially negative and Neutron revenue is essentially zero until late 2026 at earliest. The pre-flight thesis that the market prices "EBITDA breakeven by 2027-2028 at ~$1B revenue" is actually generous to the bulls — at 25% EBITDA margins on $1B, that's $250M of EBITDA, meaning the stock trades at 167x 2028 EBITDA today. That is not "fully priced" — that is priced for a scenario where Neutron works AND captures meaningful Falcon 9 share AND margins reach SpaceX-like levels. Three conditional bets stacked.
The contrarian case the models under-weight: Starship. If SpaceX's Starship achieves even partial reusability at its target cadence, the entire economic premise of Neutron — a partially reusable medium-lift vehicle — collapses before it flies commercially. Neutron's addressable market assumes SpaceX capacity constraints persist; Starship explicitly removes that constraint. Second contrarian point: the insider selling on July 7-8, 2026 totals ~2.14M shares across ten filings from multiple insiders in two days. That is not routine 10b5-1 diversification — that is a coordinated distribution at what insiders evidently view as a favorable price. Combined with the sequential revenue decline and widening op losses, the insider tape is telling you something the narrative isn't. Third: the debt-to-equity of 0.15 looks pristine, but with $321.8M annual FCF burn and Neutron capex still ramping, expect a convertible or equity raise within 18 months — dilution risk is not in the current share count.
Data caveats: the 2026-07-08 insider filing dates suggest this dataset extends into mid-2026, but the most recent quarterly revenue shown is Q1 2025 — there's a ~15-month gap in quarterly fundamentals versus the insider data, which is a significant blind spot. Neutron may have flown, revenue may have inflected, or slipped further — we're flying blind on the single most important variable. The "Low Revenue Confidence" flag deserves more weight than the models give it. The negative P/E, negative EV/EBITDA, and 20x P/B are all meaningless here — correctly flagged — so the entire valuation case reduces to EV/Sales against a growth trajectory that just decelerated. I dissent from "High Conviction Required" (which is really a soft hold) and call this overvalued at $66.94. A defensible fair value for a pre-profit launch platform growing 38% with -38% operating margins and Neutron optionality is more like $28-38B market cap ($45-60/share), which credits meaningful Neutron probability but doesn't assume flawless execution. The stock could still work if Neutron flies clean in 2026, but the risk/reward at $41.8B is asymmetric to the downside — a Neutron slip or a bad Starship demo takes this to $40 fast, while success gets you maybe $85-95. Wait for the Neutron catalyst or a $50-handle re-rating.
GPT Reading
What stands out to me is not just that Rocket Lab is expensive, but that the current valuation has become detached from the part of the business that is actually proven. The company has undeniably built something real: revenue has scaled from $62.2M in 2021 to $601.8M in 2025, nearly a 10x increase in four years, and gross profit has gone from negative to $207.2M over that span. That is serious operating progress, not SPAC vapor. But the income statement also says the business is still very far from self-funding. Operating losses were -$228.8M in 2025 versus -$189.8M in 2024, net losses were still about -$198.2M, operating cash flow was -$165.5M, and free cash flow was -$321.8M after $156.3M of capex. In other words, Rocket Lab has achieved commercial validation at the gross-profit line, but every step closer to becoming a full-scale launch and space systems platform is currently making the cash economics worse, not better. At $41.8B market cap and roughly 58x EV/revenue, investors are paying today for a business model that exists mostly in management’s roadmap, not in the reported numbers.
The quarterly pattern matters too, though I read it a bit differently from Opus. Q1 2025 revenue of $122.6M was up 32% from Q1 2024’s $92.8M, and the last four quarters before that were $106.3M, $104.8M, $132.4M, then $122.6M. That is not a clean hypergrowth curve; it looks lumpy and increasingly harder to accelerate off a larger base. At the same time, the net margin in Q1 2025 was -49.5%, slightly worse than -47.7% a year earlier, so there is no evidence yet that scale is pushing Rocket Lab toward bottom-line inflection. The balance sheet is healthy on the surface — $828.7M cash against $254.0M debt and a current ratio above 4x — but that cash pile should be viewed as construction fuel, not surplus capital. If free cash burn remains in the $300M range, the company has runway, but not enough runway to justify complacency about dilution if Neutron timelines or customer ramps slip. My core read is simple: this is a genuine company with genuine strategic assets, but the stock is being valued as if the hardest execution chapter has already been de-risked.
I agree with Opus on the main call that the shares are overvalued at $66.94 and that Neutron optionality is doing most of the valuation work. I also agree with the specific claim that gross margin is the most encouraging line item in the file: moving from 21.0% gross margin in 2023 to 26.6% in 2024 and 34.4% in 2025 is the clearest evidence Rocket Lab is not just buying revenue. I further agree that the rule-based “High Conviction Required” framing is too gentle; when a company trades near 60x sales with -38.0% operating margins and -$321.8M of FCF, that is not a soft hold, it is a speculation on future category leadership. Where I disagree with Opus is on emphasis. Opus leans heavily on the sequential Q1 decline from $132.4M to $122.6M as a major warning sign. I think that overstates what one quarter can tell us in a project-based aerospace business; the bigger issue is not one sequential downtick but that even after reaching $601.8M of annual revenue, Rocket Lab still posted worsening operating losses and huge incremental capital needs. I also think Opus’s Starship argument is directionally fair but too absolute. Starship does not have to “collapse” Neutron’s premise for RKLB equity to be overvalued; Electron plus space systems plus sovereign/defense launch diversification could still support a valuable franchise. The problem is that a valuable franchise is not the same as a $41.8B franchise today.
I also partly disagree with Opus’s treatment of insider sales. The ~2.14M shares sold across July 7-8 is unquestionably a yellow flag, and I agree it should not be dismissed. But calling it “coordinated distribution” goes beyond the evidence provided here, because we do not have seller identities, prices, ownership context, or 10b5-1 details. The stronger and more defensible claim is simply that insiders were net sellers into a rich valuation, which is consistent with my negative view. On fair value, I end up slightly below Opus’s range because the multiple is so extreme relative to current proof points. Even if I grant 2026 revenue of roughly $850M-$1.0B, the current market cap still implies 42x-49x one-year-forward sales at the low end and about 42x at the high end if one uses market cap; on EV the message is similar. For a business with persistent negative operating leverage and material execution risk, that is too high. I would not pay more than roughly $35-50 per share before there is concrete evidence of Neutron commercialization or a much clearer path to cash burn compression.
A careful skeptic of both my view and Opus’s would say we may be underestimating how rare Rocket Lab’s asset base is. A company that has already scaled from $62M to $602M in four years, improved gross margin by more than 37 points since 2021, and sits on $828.7M of cash may deserve a valuation framework closer to a strategic defense-space platform than a conventional industrial. That skeptic would also point out that the dataset is oddly stale on quarterly fundamentals relative to the mid-2026 insider prints, so both bulls and bears are making calls with an incomplete picture. Fair enough. But with the numbers actually in hand, the burden of proof is on the bull at $66.94, not on the skeptic.
Grok Reading
grok-critique step) alongside the other Big-3 seats, when a
report is run on this ticker.
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
The business itself is scaling meaningfully: revenue grew from $62M in 2021 to $602M in 2025 (roughly 10x in four years), and gross margin has climbed steadily from -3% to 34.4%. Operating margin remains deeply negative at -38%, but the trend is improving from -164% in 2021. Balance sheet is a genuine strength - $1.02B liquid cash, $763M net cash, Altman Z of 41.5, and ~13 quarters of runway even at the elevated 2025 cash burn. Earnings quality screens clean (Beneish -2.24, negative accruals), though OCF/NI of 0.61x reflects the cash-vs-accounting gap typical of a hardware scaler with working capital intensity. The concerns are structural to the per-share value story, not the business narrative. Diluted shares have grown at a 26.5% CAGR (209.5M to 535.7M since 2021), with SBC running 11.8% of revenue and zero buyback offset - so even as revenue nearly triples, per-share revenue growth is materially diluted. FCF actually worsened in 2025 to -$322M (from -$116M in 2024), which shortens the runway math faster than headline cash suggests. Founder-CEO Peter Beck sold ~$286M across a concentrated July 2026 window - the size and clustering are notable regardless of whether under a 10b5-1 plan. Net: this is a legitimately scaling aerospace platform with a fortress balance sheet and improving unit economics, but it is not yet a profitable or self-funding business, and the equity is being used aggressively as currency.
Verify before trusting this (6)
- Whether Beck's July 2026 sales were executed under a pre-existing 10b5-1 plan and what fraction of his stake remains
- Customer concentration in the $602M revenue base (government/defense vs commercial mix)
- Backlog composition and duration - how much is Neutron vs Electron vs Space Systems
- Neutron development capex trajectory and whether the 2025 FCF step-down is peak burn
- Any convertible notes or warrant overhang beyond the reported SBC that would add to future dilution
- Segment-level gross margins to see whether Space Systems or Launch is driving the 34.4% consolidated GM
The company does under $500M of revenue, is unprofitable, and just accelerated cash burn. A $41.8B market cap implies a revenue multiple in the 80-100x range on a business that has not proven the product (Neutron) that would justify anywhere near this scale. The e2e synthesis flagging 'High Conviction Required' is a polite way of saying no reasonable DCF gets here without heroic assumptions - Neutron on time, on budget, winning meaningful share against Falcon 9, and doing it before Starship compresses mid-lift economics. That is a stack of low-probability wins already fully in the price. The quality lens is 'Mixed' with a -13 score: real revenue momentum, yes, but 26.5% annual share dilution and the founder cashing out $286M actively lower per-share deserved value. Even if you credit the business as genuinely improving, the deserved value at today's execution level is likely in the $20-30 range, not $67. There is no margin of safety here - you are paying an option premium for a binary Neutron outcome, and if it slips or underdelivers, the multiple compression is severe. The correct read is not 'good company therefore fine price' - it is 'good story fully priced, with dilution actively working against you.'
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Neutron first-flight schedule and any slippage in guidance
- Quarterly share count trajectory and any new equity raises
- Gross margin path on Electron and Space Systems segment
- Backlog composition and government vs commercial mix
- Cash runway at current burn rate
The dominant force on RKLB right now is narrative, not macro. The story is a strong-intensity turnaround-bet with medium cult following, and this week's $266M USSF award - explicitly framed as the company's largest ever - directly feeds the bull thesis that Rocket Lab is graduating from niche small-sat launcher to credible defense-grade prime and mid-lift challenger. Headlines are uniformly bullish ('Escape SpaceX's Shadow,' 'Biggest-Ever'), and the stock popped on the print, showing the tape is rewarding, not fading, good news. That is the signature of a narrative in the ascendant phase. Working against it: a nascent Risk-Off regime (VIX 18.7, S&P off highs) with 10y at 4.69% and market PE 26.6. With beta 2.55 and an unprofitable, story-driven, long-duration cash-flow profile, RKLB is exactly the archetype that gets marked down hardest if risk-off deepens - high-beta, no earnings floor, valuation entirely dependent on Neutron optionality. For now the idiosyncratic contract news is winning, but the macro overhang caps how far the tailwind can run and any VIX spike would reverse the read quickly. Analyst tone remains constructive (the Barron's-style piece flags Wall Street bullishness), and momentum is strong-positive with 56.9% CAGR, though the recent 38% deceleration hints the easy narrative gains may be maturing.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Whether VIX pushes through 22 and forces a broad high-beta unwind that would swamp idiosyncratic news
- Neutron test-flight timeline slippage - any delay is a direct crack in the turnaround narrative
- Follow-on defense contract cadence - does the USSF win beget more, or was it a one-off
- Analyst target revisions in the next 2 weeks post-contract - upgrades would confirm the tailwind
This lens hasn't been run for this ticker yet.
When we made this prediction on Jul 28, 2026, RKLB was $66.94. We expect it to be $60.00 by Jan 2027, and we consider it great value under $30.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Jul 28, 2026.
Blue is our prediction, starting the day we made it. Grey is a slower route to the same place — the same destination, taking longer. Black is the actual price, so you can see how we are doing.