Sure, you can throw any numbers around, if you wish to get any valuation you want.

In reality, a valuation based on revenue (sales) is bonkers to begin with, but even worse when you consider that Anthropic has so much debt that it doesn't have positive equity value, it's in a deficit ("When liabilities attached to an asset exceed its value, the difference is called a deficit and the asset is informally said to be "underwater" or "upside-down""). At least SpaceX has more assets than liabilities.

▲

runako an hour ago | parent [-]

There are a set of mistakes in what you wrote, but

> SpaceX has more assets than liabilities.

is definitely a choice thing to write on the day SpaceX announced a $40B debt deal to purchase compute to run other companies' models. Based on available information, this will put SpaceX into a place where it has more liabilities than assets.

▲

extraextra an hour ago | parent [-]

Lol

You're speculating what SpaceX balance sheet might be, like they haven't just released MRQ earnings report last week

Just go read it and you'll see you're wrong even after you subtract that 40 billion SPV https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1181412/000162828026...

▲

runako 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

Fair, I misread the filing.

Larger point stands. SpaceX is commanding a 62x sales multiple, whether or not you personally believe price:sales should be relevant. SpaceX's AI operation is smaller and growing slower than Anthropic's. It's reasonable to expect investors to benchmark Anthropic against SpaceX, it would be silly not to do so. A normal thing one would expect investors to do is assign a higher multiple to a company that grows faster.

	▲	extraextra 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Larger point doesn't stand, price/sales is as useful of a metric like measuring speed as mass/distance. "Yes, my speed is 100kg/10 meters". Some people will benchmark Anthropic vs. SpaceX, that doesn't make it a smart approach. A normal thing is to consider risk, liabilities, cashflow, how diversified revenue streams are etc., and other things which you seem to be missing. I'm not trying to dissuade you from buying it. I'm just saying that the reasons you give are wrong.