AST SpaceMobileASTS
$18.7B market cap · share count from market dataBuilding a satellite network to connect ordinary phones directly from space.
AST SpaceMobile in 36 checks
AST SpaceMobile at a glance: how it scores on value, growth, quality, health, shareholder returns and trend. The fuller the shape, the stronger the company. Behind each axis are six pass-or-fail checks from its filings, spelled out in the chapters below. Point at an axis to see them.
The business itself is the question here - 6 of 36 checks passed.
Value
What you pay today for what the business produces, measured against ASTS's own history and its peers, never a universal rule.
Expensive against its own history and its sector (judged on sales - not yet profitable) - you're paying up for what you get.
What cash return does the business throw off per dollar of market value?
-8.8%FCF yield today
◌ 2026 = at the latest close (2026-09-04), over the trailing twelve months; earlier years are annual averages
→At -8.8%, the business is throwing off more cash per dollar of market value than its own 3-year median of -13.8% - the cheaper end of its history.
What does “Value” actually mean?
Value asks what you pay for each dollar of earnings, sales or cash the business produces. A high multiple isn't automatically bad - fast growers earn theirs - but a price far above the company's own history means the market expects a lot to go right. We compare each multiple to the company's own past and to its sector, never to a universal rule.
How we scored it · 0 of 6 checks passed
| – | Cheaper than its own history (sales - not yet profitable) | under 3 years of history |
| ✕ | Cheaper than its peers (sales) | 162.01 vs 2.50 (peer median) |
| ✕ | Cheap on enterprise value vs sales | 147.99 vs 3.00 (peer median) |
| ✕ | Free cash flow yield above 3% | FCF yield -8.8% |
| ✕ | Cheap on enterprise value | 265.22 vs 14.00 (peer median) |
| ✕ | Price isn't outrunning growth | no positive three-year earnings growth behind the price |
Growth
What the company has actually reported - is it selling more, and is more of it becoming profit?
Growing, but with caveats - revenue +706.3% over the last year.
Revenue: is the business selling more than it used to?
◌ 2026 = trailing twelve months to the latest filed quarter, not a full fiscal year
→Revenue reached $71M in 2025, compounding +72% a year since 2022 and the pace is picking up. The trailing twelve months are already running at $115M, ahead of the last full year.
Net income: how much of that revenue becomes profit?
◌ 2026 = trailing twelve months to the latest filed quarter, not a full fiscal year
→The company lost $342M in 2025, more than the $300M it lost the year before. The losses are widening - check the Health chapter for how long the cash lasts.
How fast is it growing, year by year?
+413%revenue growth, FY 2025
→Revenue grew +413% in 2025. Each point is one year's change against the year before.
What does “Growth” actually mean?
Growth here is what the company has actually reported to the SEC - not a forecast. We look at the last year, the three-year pace, whether growth is speeding up or slowing down, and whether it's been consistent rather than one lucky year. Hatched bars are fourth quarters we derived from annual filings (companies file a full-year 10-K rather than a Q4 report).
How we scored it · 3 of 6 checks passed
| ✓ | Outgrew its sector last year | 706.3% vs 5.2% (sector 70th pct, n=61) |
| ✓ | Sustained growth beats its sector (3 years) | 72.5% vs 5.2% (sector 70th pct, n=57) |
| ✕ | Profits grew last year | loss-making: TTM net income $-619M |
| ✕ | Profit growth beats its peers | loss-making: TTM net income $-619M |
| ✓ | Growth is speeding up, not slowing | 1y 706.3% vs 3y 72.5% |
| – | Grew per share, not just in total | under 3 years of per-share history |
Quality
Whether the growth makes real money - margins, returns on capital, and whether profits turn into cash.
Profitability is thin or negative - the growth isn't turning into money yet.
Margins: of every $1 of sales, how much survives each cost layer?
◌ 2026 = trailing twelve months to the latest filed quarter (2026-06-30), not a full fiscal year
→Net margin stands at -482% in 2025. ASTS doesn't break out gross or operating margin in its filings, so net is the only layer the data supports.
Earnings quality: do the reported profits turn into real cash?
◌ 2026 = trailing twelve months to the latest filed quarter (2026-06-30), not a full fiscal year
→The company generated $-72M of operating cash in 2025. With no profit to compare against, cash generation is the number that matters here.
What does it earn on the money it uses?
◌ 2026 = trailing twelve months to the latest filed quarter (2026-06-30), not a full fiscal year
→ROE of -14% on shareholders' capital (ROCE isn't meaningful for this business model).
How much of every sales dollar ends up as free cash?
◌ 2026 = trailing twelve months to the latest filed quarter, not a full fiscal year
→Free cash flow is negative, so no share of revenue is currently converting to spare cash. Every sales dollar is being reinvested or consumed.
What does staying competitive cost, per dollar of sales?
◌ 2026 = trailing twelve months to the latest filed quarter (2026-06-30), not a full fiscal year
→The biggest claim on each sales dollar is capital spending, at 1501% of revenue (stock compensation 67%, research and development 40%). That share has risen since 2022, so the cost of competing is climbing.
What does “Quality” actually mean?
Quality asks whether the growth makes real money. Margins show how much of each sale survives costs; return on equity shows what shareholders earn on their capital; and the profit-to-cash comparison catches companies whose accounting profits never turn into actual cash.
How we scored it · 0 of 6 checks passed
| ✕ | Better gross margins than peers | 0.0% vs 52.5% (market 70th pct) |
| ✕ | Runs leaner than peers (operating margin) | -2.1% vs 13.8% (sector 70th pct, n=62) |
| ✕ | Actually profitable | TTM net income $-619M |
| ✕ | Earns well on shareholders' money | -25.8% vs 11.1% (sector 70th pct, n=53) |
| ✕ | Earns a real return on the capital it employs | -0.0% vs 10.0% |
| ✕ | Generates cash despite the loss | TTM operating cash flow $-145M on a net loss of $619M |
Health
The balance sheet stress test: could ASTS survive a bad year?
The balance sheet carries real risk - read the checks before anything else.
Could it handle its debt if things went wrong?
◌ 2026 = the latest balance sheet (2026-06-30), not a fiscal year-end
→The company holds $4.6B in cash against $3.0B of debt - a net-cash balance sheet, which means a bad year is an inconvenience rather than a threat.
Is the company's own capital growing or shrinking?
→The company's own capital grew from $214M in 2023 to $2.4B (+1023%). The business is building book value rather than consuming it.
What does “Health” actually mean?
Health asks one question: can the business survive a bad year? We check whether near-term bills are covered, whether debt is modest and shrinking, whether earnings comfortably pay the interest, and - for loss-makers - how many years of cash are left at the current burn rate.
How we scored it · 2 of 6 checks passed
| ✓ | Comfortable near-term liquidity | 13.05 vs 1.50 |
| ✕ | Debt isn't dominating | 1.24 vs 1.00 |
| ✕ | Debt trending the right way | debt/equity 1.24 now vs 0.01 five years ago |
| ✕ | Earnings cover the interest | -0.04 vs 5.00 |
| ✕ | Converts sales to cash better than its sector | -125.5% vs 23.1% (sector 70th pct, n=64) |
| ✓ | Self-funding | 2.80 years of cash at current burn |
Shareholder returns
How much cash actually flows back to owners - dividends, buybacks, whether the share count truly falls, and whether what is handed back is affordable.
ASTS returns nothing to owners yet - every dollar stays in the business.
Why compare buybacks with stock compensation?
A company can trumpet billions in buybacks while quietly issuing nearly as much stock to employees. What matters to you is the net effect: is the share count actually falling? If not, the 'return' is mostly recycling.
How we scored it · 0 of 6 checks passed
| – | Share count isn't climbing | under 3 years of share counts |
| ✕ | Buybacks outpace the stock issued to staff | no buybacks against $148M of stock compensation |
| ✕ | Hands cash back to owners | no dividends and no buybacks in the last twelve months |
| ✕ | Meaningful yield to owners (dividends and buybacks) | 0.00 returned, 0.0% of market value |
| ✕ | Buybacks are sustained, not one-off | pays no dividend and reports no buybacks |
| ✕ | Buybacks growing | pays no dividend and reports no buybacks |
Trend analysis
What the market is doing about all of the above. This is price behaviour, not a fact about the business - read it as the market's current opinion, scored on six checks like every other chapter. The market is the S&P 500, measured by the SPY ETF with dividends included, over 3 months (63 trading sessions) and 12 months (252).
The market is voting against it right now - a falling trend on most measures.
How is ASTS's trend actually behaving right now?
Chart by TradingView
→ASTS is in a downtrend. The price is below the band where recent trading settled and that band is still falling, so nothing in the picture has turned yet. It has held that side of the band for 46 sessions, so this is well established. The last two weeks have rolled over, though the price is still above where it stood a month ago, so the fall is recent rather than long-running.
How the trend above is worked out
The trend read comes from the daily Ichimoku picture, a standard trend indicator, translated out of its jargon. It builds a band from the midpoints of the last 9, 26 and 52 sessions' highs and lows - in effect, the range where recent trading has settled - and draws that band 26 sessions into the future. Price above the band is an uptrend, below it a downtrend, inside it no trend. Because the band is drawn forward, the support for the next few weeks is already fixed and a change of its direction can be seen coming. We also compare the last two weeks against the last month, and today's price against where it stood a month ago. None of this says anything about the business; it describes the price only, and it is not advice. Where a check says 'the S&P 500', the comparison is with the SPY ETF including dividends, on the same adjusted basis as the stock's own price: short means 3 months, 63 trading sessions; long means 12 months, 252.
How we scored it · 1 of 6 checks passed
| ✕ | Trading above its cloud | 0.00 vs 0.50 |
| ✕ | Long-term trend structure is healthy | 66.73 vs 81.40 |
| ✕ | Rising over 3 months | -33.4% vs 0.0% |
| ✕ | Beating the S&P 500 over 3 months | -33.4% vs 4.7% |
| ✓ | Beating the S&P 500 over 12 months | 48.9% vs 20.0% |
| ✕ | Not in a deep hole | -53.2% from its 52-week high |
Insider activity
What the people running the company do with their own shares - reported to the SEC within two days, classified so pay-plumbing doesn't masquerade as conviction.
Are the people running it buying or selling with their own money?
→$284M sold against $619,200 bought. Watch whether the buyers are executives (conviction) or the sales cluster outside scheduled plans.
Who did what, exactly?
| Date | Insider | Role | Type | Shares | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-08-31 | Adriana Cisneros | Director | BUY | 1,384 | $79,981 |
| 2026-08-31 | Adriana Cisneros | Director | BUY | 8,768 | $499,776 |
| 2026-08-31 | Adriana Cisneros | Director | BUY | 670 | $39,443 |
| 2026-08-19 | Huiwen Yao | Chief Technology Officer | X | 40,000 | $2,564 |
| 2026-08-15 | Shanti B. Gupta | Chief Operating Officer | tax | 12,767 | $906,202 |
| 2026-08-15 | Andrew Martin Johnson | CFO and CLO | tax | 9,838 | $698,301 |
| 2026-08-15 | Andrew Martin Johnson | CFO and CLO | tax | 12,297 | $872,841 |
| 2026-08-15 | Maya Bernal | Chief Accounting Officer | tax | 2,919 | $207,191 |
| 2026-08-15 | Scott Wisniewski | President | tax | 9,838 | $698,301 |
| 2026-08-15 | Scott Wisniewski | President | tax | 12,297 | $872,841 |
Why do the transaction types matter so much?
Most insider filings are not trades: stock grants, option exercises and tax withholding are how executives get paid, and gifts are estate planning. The signal lives in open-market transactions - a buy means an insider chose to spend their own cash on the stock. Sells are murkier: many are pre-scheduled 10b5-1 plans set months in advance. That's why the chart counts only open-market activity, and the table labels every row.