1D·

$Iren and $Rklb as long-term investments

I'd like to hear your thoughts on $IREN (+3,88 %) and $RKLB (+1,17 %) through 2030.

Which of the two companies do you see as having the greater potential for returns over the next 4 years?

What opportunities and risks do you currently consider particularly important?

If you could invest in only one of these two stocks today—which one would it be and why?

I’m looking forward to hearing your opinions and your price targets for 2030. 🚀📈

6 Comentarios

Pazzzi@Pazzzi

Food for thought: Compare the valuations of both companies with the point in time when they are expected to see significant revenue growth. In a nutshell: $IREN P/S2027=~7; RocketLab P/S2027e=~42. Even though RocketLab is well-positioned to become the next $SPCX competitor, it’s still a long and rocky road ahead. $IREN has already proven that the company can build data centers (currently operating the largest one in the U.S. with Childress)—even though that’s much easier than the rocket business. $IREN In my opinion, `’s business model is more attractive in the near future (4-year timeframe) because it will generate significant revenue more quickly. However, the two companies are very difficult to compare.

•

Klein-Anleger@Klein-Anleger

Both are bullish 👍

•

Kanye-Invest@Kanye-Invest

@Klein-Anleger Would you still open a position on $RKLB at this point?

••

PikaPika0105@PikaPika0105

I see Rocket Lab trading at €500–700 in 2035, which would correspond to a valuation of approximately €400 billion. I think that’s realistic, but it depends heavily on the planned satellite constellation, since that’s what will have to generate those revenues. Regardless of the target, I think the stock will definitely go up.

I’m not invested in IREN, and there’s a reason for that: I don’t believe in the business model. In the long run, the solutions that consume the least energy always prevail. So the trend is clearly moving toward photonics. Photonics isn’t just more energy-efficient—it’s also much, much, much more powerful. In my opinion, the excessive expansion of energy projects costing billions is not sustainable. The infrastructure that’s been built doesn’t necessarily have to have been a waste, but today’s narrative (that AI will multiply electricity demand) is based solely on scenarios that assume a scaling up of today’s hardware. I think the demand will be lower than people think, and the operators of this energy infrastructure could run into problems if their customers suddenly stop demanding these volumes (since they’re also very dependent on individual large data centers, they’d all go bankrupt together).

•

#TechNerd1337@TechNerd1337

Well, my own portfolio AI tells me—since this is a crystal ball question :D

Where I see the greater potential
From an asymmetric perspective over four years:

RKLB has the more robust upside asymmetry because revenue is growing even without Neutron, and Neutron is the binary option value on top of that. There’s a solid floor (Electron, Space Systems, Defense). The downside is more limited because the business already exists.

IREN has the higher theoretical leverage potential, but the distribution is more binary and skewed to the left: The contracts are enormous relative to today’s market capitalization, but the funding gap makes dilution a structural headwind. You could be right about the thesis and still get diluted as a shareholder.

If I could only choose one: RKLB

Not because the potential is higher, but because the risk-return asymmetry is better—and asymmetry is precisely your own conviction criterion. RKLB has a real, growing, diversified business underlying the optionality. IREN is closer to a pure leveraged bet on the continuation of the AI capex cycle and on its own ability to finance itself without destroying existing shareholders.

The counterargument I’ll provide myself: After a +294% gain and amid Nasdaq-100 hype, RKLB is expensive and “priced for perfection” at Neutron. A second tank failure or a delay into 2027 would hit the stock price hard. IREN is relatively “oversold” following its weak Q3 results—those betting on mean reversion and contract fulfillment will find the lower entry point there particularly attractive right now.

2030 Price Targets

I’m deliberately not giving you a specific number here—for pre-profitable, binary-driven stocks, four-year price targets are pseudo-precise, and you know that. The honest assessment: Both have realistic scenarios ranging from “−70% (the thesis fails)” to “5–10x (the thesis plays out fully).” The difference lies in the probability distribution, not in the maximum.

••

Der O.@MMeier

21H

I left $IREN yesterday. You shouldn't get greedy. The money is going toward the new house :-)

••