AI is moving from experiment… to essential.

Every major industry is integrating it.
Every major company is investing in it.

By late 2025, AI was already an $800B market — growing at a pace that could push it well beyond $1 trillion in the years ahead.

Cloud infrastructure is scaling fast.
AI-enabled devices are multiplying.
Automation is becoming standard.

But here’s the real question…

When trillions flow into this transformation — which stocks stand to benefit most?

Our new report reveals 10 AI stocks positioned across the backbone of this shift — from the companies powering the infrastructure… to those embedding intelligence into everyday systems.

If you want exposure to one of the defining growth trends of this decade, start here.

Download the Report Now

Key Takeaways

I recently listened to a conversation with Aswath Damodaran that started with SpaceX but quickly became a much broader discussion about investing, AI, valuation, and the stories we tell ourselves about the future.

What struck me most wasn't his view on SpaceX itself. It was his reminder that investors often confuse a great company with a great investment.

At first glance, that sounds counterintuitive. Surely the best companies make the best investments. Yet history suggests otherwise. A company can execute brilliantly, dominate its market, and change an industry while still delivering disappointing returns to investors if expectations become detached from reality. Investing isn't simply about identifying exceptional businesses. It's about understanding whether the future implied by today's valuation is realistic.

SpaceX is perhaps the perfect example. Most people think of it as a rocket company, but that description no longer captures what it has become. There is the launch business, which has fundamentally changed the economics of getting to space through reusable rockets. There is Starlink, a rapidly growing global communications network that has already become a meaningful business in its own right. And then there is the AI story, through xAI and its broader ambitions, which may ultimately prove to be the most valuable part of the company—or the most uncertain.

The challenge is that a significant portion of SpaceX's valuation today isn't tied to what the company is currently generating. It is tied to what investors believe it could become. The further a valuation depends on future possibilities, the more important it becomes to test the assumptions behind those possibilities.

One of Damodaran's observations that resonated with me was his criticism of how investors talk about large markets. We often hear phrases like, "The AI market is worth trillions of dollars," as though that alone settles the debate. But a large market does not automatically create a valuable business. Companies still need to acquire customers, defend market share, maintain pricing power, generate profits, and convert growth into cash flow. The history of investing is filled with examples of businesses that participated in enormous markets but failed to create meaningful value for shareholders.

The AI conversation is particularly interesting because it forces investors to answer a question that remains unresolved.

Is AI ultimately a tool, or is it a worker?

If AI primarily helps people perform their jobs more efficiently, then the opportunity is substantial. Productivity increases, businesses become more efficient, and economic output improves. But if AI begins replacing large portions of knowledge work—analysts, consultants, lawyers, developers, and other highly skilled professionals—the opportunity becomes dramatically larger. Ironically, the most optimistic forecasts for AI often depend on assumptions that would create the greatest amount of economic disruption.

Another point Damodaran raised is one that I don't think receives enough attention. Investors often compare AI businesses to software companies because software has historically been one of the most attractive business models ever created. High margins, low incremental costs, and extraordinary scalability have made software investors very wealthy over the past few decades.

But AI may not fit neatly into that framework.

Today's AI ecosystem requires enormous investments in computing infrastructure, semiconductors, energy, networking, and data centers. In many ways, AI looks less like software and more like infrastructure. That distinction matters because infrastructure businesses tend to generate very different economics than software businesses. If investors continue valuing AI companies as if they will eventually achieve traditional software economics, they may be overlooking an important risk.

This also explains why comparisons between AI and the dot-com boom feel incomplete. The internet boom was largely digital. The AI boom is deeply physical. It requires factories, chips, power generation, and massive data centers. The amount of capital being committed across the ecosystem is extraordinary. If expectations ultimately prove too optimistic, the consequences could extend well beyond stock prices and venture capital portfolios.

Underlying all of this is Damodaran's broader philosophy on valuation. He often argues that valuation is where storytelling meets discipline. The story matters because every investment begins with a view of the future. But stories alone are not enough. They must eventually translate into assumptions about revenue growth, market share, profitability, reinvestment needs, and cash flow generation.

The best investors are not purely spreadsheet-driven, nor are they purely narrative-driven. They move constantly between the two. They build a story, convert it into numbers, and then test whether those numbers make economic sense.

That framework feels especially relevant today because so much of modern value creation comes from assets that traditional accounting struggles to capture. Software, data, brands, intellectual property, algorithms, and organizational knowledge increasingly drive corporate value, yet many of these investments appear as expenses rather than assets. Investors who rely exclusively on traditional metrics may find themselves misreading some of the most important businesses of our time.

My biggest takeaway from the conversation was not about SpaceX, AI, or even valuation models. It was about expectations.

Markets are remarkably good at identifying great companies. The harder question is whether those companies are already priced for a future that may be difficult to achieve. As investors, our job is not simply to admire exceptional businesses. It is to determine whether the expectations embedded in their valuations are reasonable.

Damodaran summed it up with a simple observation that may be one of the most important principles in investing:

In an era defined by AI narratives, trillion-dollar opportunities, and extraordinary technological progress, that distinction feels more important than ever.

The challenge isn't finding great companies.

The challenge is figuring out how much of their future is already reflected in today's price.

When a pull request ships without a docs update, it's not a failure. It's just how fast teams move. But those gaps add up, and eventually someone has to go back and fill them. Mintlify Workflows takes that off your team's plate. It auto-generates changelogs, flags broken links, and drafts updates on every push, so your docs stay current without anyone having to make it their job.

Book a demo

Read more about SpaceX IPO here

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Investing in securities involves risk, including the potential loss of principal; always conduct your own research and consult a qualified financial professional before making investment decisions.