Wall Street Waits for the SpaceX IPO, These 2 Under-the-Radar IPOs Could Already Be Making You Money

The article argues SpaceX could be priced at 95x 2025 revenue if its target $1.75 trillion IPO valuation holds, suggesting the deal may be overheated. It highlights two recent IPOs, Heartflow and Neptune Insurance, as more reasonably valued: Heartflow trades at about $29 after a $19 IPO price and posted 40% 2025 revenue growth, while Neptune trades near $28 after a $20 IPO and delivered 34% revenue growth plus 32% adjusted EBITDA growth. The piece is mainly valuation commentary rather than new company-specific catalysts.

Analysis

The market is trying to price two very different businesses with the same “AI growth” shorthand, but the second-order setup is more important than the headline multiples. HTFL is a penetration story: once payer coverage expands, the adoption curve can steepen faster than revenue suggests because hospital workflows and cardiology referral patterns create a sticky, software-like install base. NP is a catastrophe-risk monetization story: the real edge is not premium growth alone, but the ability to underwrite faster and more selectively than legacy flood channels, which should improve loss ratios through the cycle if pricing discipline holds.

The biggest misread on both names is that they are not classic high-beta IPOs driven only by sentiment. HTFL’s upside depends on conversion of clinical validation into reimbursement and routine usage at scale; that is a 12–24 month catalyst path, not a next-quarter trade. NP’s upside is more path-dependent on climate-driven demand and the frequency/severity of flood events, but the cleaner capital-light MGA structure means earnings quality can improve faster than top-line growth, making it easier for the market to re-rate on margin progress rather than volume alone.

Consensus is likely underestimating how quickly a “reasonable” post-IPO multiple can become expensive if growth decelerates even modestly. HTFL at a premium sales multiple can re-rate sharply if revenue growth slips below the low-20s while it remains unprofitable; NP at high EBITDA multiples is vulnerable if catastrophe loss assumptions normalize or reinsurer terms tighten. By contrast, the article’s skepticism on very large speculative IPOs suggests near-term capital may rotate into these smaller, demonstrably commercialized names as investors seek cleaner execution and lower narrative risk.

Key Decisions for Investors

• Long HTFL on pullbacks, 3-6 month horizon: prefer entry after any post-earnings digestion; upside is a re-rate if 2026 guidance translates into sustained payer adoption. Risk/reward is attractive if revenue growth stays >20% and margins continue to expand.
• Long NP vs. short a diversified P&C insurer basket, 6-12 month horizon: pair trade favors NP’s focused flood expertise and automation over slower-growth carriers with less pricing transparency. Risk is a sharp flood-loss season or adverse reinsurance repricing.
• Sell covered calls on HTFL, 1-2 earnings cycles: monetize elevated valuation while retaining upside from adoption, since the main risk is multiple compression rather than business collapse. Use strikes 15-20% above spot to avoid truncating normal volatility.
• Avoid chasing the headline IPO theme into the mega-cap private-to-public listing; if it comes at an extreme revenue multiple, use it as a source of liquidity to rotate into HTFL/NP on weakness. The better risk-adjusted trade is the “real business” IPO cohort, not the story stock.
• For more aggressive accounts, structure a long HTFL / short unprofitable AI-software basket, 6-12 months: thesis is that clinical AI with reimbursement and workflow integration outperforms generic AI narrative names if the market penalizes revenue deceleration.