Who are the top 10 rushing duos headed into the 2025 NFL season?
The NFL has seen the running game featured heavily of late, and several running backs are getting new, high-end extensions. This development comes in the wake of Saquon Barkley breaking the league's combined single-season rushing record, Derrick Henry having a huge first year with the Baltimore Ravens and Christian McCaffrey balling out with the San Francisco 49ers before an injury-plagued 2024.
There are also a handful of quarterbacks whose rushing ability is a featured part of their respective team's offense. That said, who are the best overall rushing combinations in the NFL — running backs and/or quarterbacks?
Here are the top 10 rushing duos heading into the 2025 season, according to FOX Sports Research.
Las Vegas' 2025 offense looks to feature a potent rushing attack, headlined by Jeanty, whom the Raiders selected with the sixth overall pick in the 2025 NFL Draft, and Mostert, who rushed for 1,012 yards and 18 touchdowns in 2023. Jeanty was the runner-up for the 2024 Heisman Trophy Award after rushing for a nation-best 2,601 yards and 29 touchdowns at Boise State. Ironically, the Raiders were last in the NFL in rushing last season (79.8 yards per game), but Jeanty's grueling skill set and Mostert's proven track record give them a plausible one-two punch.
The Washington Commanders have a lot going for them, but their rushing attack stands out first and foremost. Robinson has been a steady force across his three years (2022-24) in the league, averaging 776 rushing yards and five touchdowns on 4.1 yards per carry; he punched in a career-high eight rushing scores last season. Of course, Washington tripling its win total from 2023 to 2024 and making the NFC Championship Game was primarily due to the outstanding play of Daniels, who won 2024 Offensive Rookie of the Year honors. The 2023 Heisman Trophy winner threw for 25 touchdowns, posted a 100.1 passer rating, completed 69.0% of his passes and added 891 yards and six touchdowns on the ground.
The Carolina Panthers stumbled into a running back room that has two players who rushed for over 1,000 yards last year. Hubbard has continued to produce and increase his production, rushing for a career-high 1,195 yards and 10 touchdowns on 4.8 yards per carry in 2024. Meanwhile, Dowdle, who signed with the Panthers after five years with the Dallas Cowboys (he missed the 2021 season due to a hip injury), became the team's starting back in 2024 and rushed for 1,079 yards and two touchdowns on 4.6 yards per carry in what was his first time getting the majority of the running back reps. Prior to his 235 carries in 2024, Dowdle's career high was 89 carries (2023).
The Atlanta Falcons have built one of the best running back rooms in the league. A fifth-round pick in 2022, Allgeier rushed for 1,035 yards on 4.9 yards per carry in his rookie campaign. Then, Atlanta took Robinson with the eighth overall pick in 2023, and he became the team's featured running back. Still, Allgeier has rushed for 664 yards per season from 2023-24. Meanwhile, Robinson was a Pro Bowler in 2024 after rushing for 1,456 yards and 14 touchdowns on 4.8 yards per carry. He also totaled 61 receptions for 431 yards.
The Seattle Seahawks have drafted well, and their running back room epitomizes that notion. Walker, a 2022 second-round pick, came on strong in his rookie season, rushing for 1,050 yards and nine touchdowns on 4.6 yards per carry, which he followed up by rushing for eight scores in 2023. Granted, Walker rushed for just 573 yards across 11 games in 2024. Charbonnet, a 2023 second-round pick, had his bright moments as a rookie and then rushed for 569 yards and eight touchdowns in 2024, while tallying 42 receptions for 340 yards. The Seahawks have a pair of quick running backs on rookie deals.
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are another team that has drafted well and has the running back room to prove it. Tampa Bay selected Irving in the fourth round of the 2024 NFL Draft, and he became an integral part of its offense from the jump; Irving rushed for 1,122 yards and eight touchdowns on 5.4 yards per carry in his rookie campaign while reeling in 47 receptions for 392 yards. His 1,122 rushing yards were the most for a Bucs player in a single season since Doug Martin rushed for 1,402 yards in 2015. Meanwhile, White has been a balanced threat in Tampa Bay's offense, both bouncing to the outside and serving as a reliable part of the team's passing attack. In three years, White has rushed for 695 yards and three touchdowns and reeled in 55 receptions for 411 yards and four touchdowns per season.
The Buffalo Bills love to run that football, which is what happens when arguably your two best offensive players can rip it up on the ground. A Pro Bowler in two of his first three years, Cook has emerged as one of the better backs in the league, rushing for 1,066 yards on 4.8 yards per carry per season from 2023-24 and rushing for 16 touchdowns in 2024. Meanwhile, Allen is arguably the most physically imposing quarterback in the sport, bulldozing defenders at 6-foot-5, 237 pounds. Allen, the 2024 NFL MVP, has rushed for 592 yards and nine touchdowns per season over his seven-year career (2018-24) and posted 13.5 rushing scores per season from 2023-24.
Already a perennial Super Bowl contender, the Philadelphia Eagles brought in Barkley and created a physically imposing backfield of historical heights. After rushing for 1,000-plus yards in three of his six seasons with the New York Giants (2018-23), Barkley became the ninth running back in NFL history to rush for 2,000 yards, posting 2,005 yards and 13 rushing scores in 16 games last year. Then, he rushed for five touchdowns in the playoffs, with three of those scores going for at least 60 yards. All the while, Hurts, the Super Bowl LIX MVP and a two-time Pro Bowler, has been a force to be reckoned with on the ground, rushing for 695 yards and 13 touchdowns per season from 2021-24, while being at the center of the "tush push" execution.
The Detroit Lions' offense is a well-oiled machine, as it ranked second in the NFL in passing yards (263.2 yards per game) and sixth in rushing yards (146.4 yards per game) last season. A Pro Bowler in each of his first two campaigns, Gibbs has been an electric force as both a rusher and pass-catcher. Last year, Gibbs rushed for 1,412 yards and an NFL-high 16 touchdowns on 5.6 yards per carry, while racking up 52 receptions for 517 yards and four scores. Montgomery has missed three regular-season games in each of the past two years for the Lions but has been a battering ram with the ball in his hands, averaging 12.5 rushing touchdowns per season from 2023-24 and totaling 341 receiving yards in 2024. Detroit has ranked in the top six in the NFL in rushing in each of the past two years.
The Baltimore Ravens have finished in the top three in rushing in each of the past seven seasons and first in the past two. That's what happens when you add Henry to an offense that already includes a two-time NFL MVP in Jackson. Henry, a five-time Pro Bowler, rushed for 1,921 yards and an NFL-high 16 touchdowns on a career-high 5.9 yards per carry in his first year with the franchise (2024). He also led the NFL with 19 carries for 20 or more yards. Jackson, who posted a career-high 4,172 passing yards, 41 passing touchdowns and a 119.6 passer rating in 2024, continues to kick up dust, also rushing for 915 yards and four touchdowns. Since 2019, Jackson has averaged 913 rushing yards and five rushing scores per season.
Honorable mentions:
Check out all of our Daily Rankers.
Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, and follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Patents and economies of scale support Pfizer's wide moat
Pfizer's innovative business should grow faster after it divests its off-patent division Upjohn in 2020 to create Viatris and Mylan. With fewer older medications and fewer patent losses, Pfizer is well-positioned for consistent growth, excluding the erratic sales of Covid-19-related products. The company is less vulnerable to any one patent loss thanks to its wide range of medications. Because of its more complex manufacturing process and more affordable prices, Pfizer's stronger position in the vaccine marketwhich includes the pneumococcal vaccine Prevnarmakes it more resilient to generic competition. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Signs with PFE. With a 30% to 80% reduction, Trump's executive order would establish a "most favored nation" policy in which the US would pay the same amount for prescription medications as the nation with the lowest price. It is anticipated that this policy, which was previously blocked by courts, will reduce the US's annual drug spending of over $400 billion, saving taxpayers over a seven-year period. Given that drug prices in the United States are high when compared to other countries, Pfizer's U.S. revenue could be drastically impacted by the 30% to 80% price cut, especially for high-margin medications. International reference pricing policies have long been opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which claims they could hinder innovation and limit access to new companies anticipate that the order will target Medicare and may have an impact on medications not covered by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. President Trump has said that significant tariffs on pharmaceutical products will probably be announced soon. He has also put a 90-day hold on broader tariffs for the majority of his trading partners to give them time to negotiate. Despite being mostly exempt from tariffs, the biopharma industry is preparing for a possible pharma-specific announcement that might affect global manufacturing strategies. Products made in Europe and imported into the US may be subject to the rumored 25% tariff, necessitating the construction of new facilities that will take years to complete. Due to home country manufacturing, tax benefits, lower production costs, and exposure to currency fluctuations, businesses based in the US and Europe are heavily exposed to European manufacturing. Because drug spending is not cyclical, the direct effect of tariffs on earnings is probably going to be minimal, and the indirect effect of a possible recession should also be minimal. With the exception of small-scale US capacity expansions, biopharma is unlikely to completely reevaluate its manufacturing footprint if pharmaceutical tariffs are implemented but are lifted after 2026 as a result of political pressure from the midterm elections. Leadership in Vaccines Pfizer stands out with its dominant position in vaccines, most notably its highly successful COVID-19 vaccine developed in partnership with BioNTech. This vaccine not only generated significant revenue but also established Pfizer as a leader in mRNA technology, a platform with potential applications in oncology, rare diseases, and beyond. Johnson & Johnson (J&J): J&J also developed a COVID-19 vaccine, but it was less widely adopted due to lower efficacy rates and safety concerns, giving Pfizer a clear advantage in this high-impact area. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): GSK has a strong vaccine portfolio (e.g., shingles and meningitis vaccines) but did not independently develop a COVID-19 vaccine, relying on partnerships like Sanofi, which delayed its entry and diminished its competitive stance. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS): BMS has no significant presence in vaccines, focusing instead on oncology and immunology, making Pfizer's vaccine leadership a unique strength. R&D Capabilities and Pipeline Focus Pfizer's R&D efforts are concentrated on high-growth therapeutic areas such as oncology, vaccines, and rare diseases. Its ability to leverage mRNA technology and rapidly develop innovative therapies underscores its R&D prowess. J&J: J&J's R&D spans pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health. While this diversification provides stability, it may dilute J&J's focus on cutting-edge pharmaceutical innovation compared to Pfizer's targeted approach. GSK: GSK excels in respiratory diseases and HIV research, but its pipeline is less broad and lacks the same level of innovation in emerging technologies like mRNA that Pfizer is advancing. BMS: BMS has a strong oncology pipeline, particularly in immuno-oncology, but its narrower focus limits its competitiveness in other high-growth areas where Pfizer thrives, such as vaccines and rare diseases. Global Reach and Market Presence Pfizer operates in over 150 countries, giving it a vast global footprint that enhances its ability to distribute products and capture market share across both developed and emerging markets. J&J: J&J also has a global presence, but its focus is split across pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health, potentially reducing its pharmaceutical market penetration compared to Pfizer. GSK: GSK is strong in Europe and emerging markets but less dominant in the U.S., the world's largest pharmaceutical market, where Pfizer has a significant advantage. BMS: BMS focuses heavily on the U.S. and Europe, with less presence in emerging markets, limiting its global scale compared to Pfizer. Brand Reputation and Trust The success of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine has significantly boosted its brand recognition and trust among consumers, healthcare providers, and governments, reinforcing its market position. J&J: J&J enjoys a strong reputation in consumer health, but its pharmaceutical division lacks the same level of visibility and trust as Pfizer's, particularly after COVID-19 vaccine challenges. GSK: GSK is well-regarded in respiratory and HIV treatments but does not have the broad public recognition that Pfizer has achieved. BMS: BMS is respected in oncology but lacks the widespread brand prominence that Pfizer has cultivated. Innovation in Emerging Technologies Pfizer's investment in mRNA technology positions it as a pioneer in pharmaceutical innovation, with potential applications in vaccines, cancer treatments, and more, giving it a forward-looking edge. J&J: J&J innovates in medical devices and consumer health but trails Pfizer in adopting next-generation pharmaceutical technologies like mRNA. GSK: GSK focuses on innovation in respiratory and HIV treatments but has not made significant advances in mRNA or other emerging platforms. BMS: BMS drives innovation in immuno-oncology but lacks Pfizer's breadth and leadership in cutting-edge technologies. Pfizer's competitive edge over Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol Myers Squibb lies in its unmatched leadership in vaccines, particularly through mRNA technology, combined with a robust R&D pipeline, extensive global reach, substantial financial resources, strong brand reputation, and a focus on innovation. While J&J benefits from diversification, GSK from efficiency, and BMS from oncology expertise, none rival Pfizer's comprehensive strengths across these critical areas, ensuring its dominance in the pharmaceutical landscape. Pfizer's broad moat is supported by patents, economies of scale, and a strong distribution network. Strong pricing power derived from Pfizer's patent-protected medications allows the company to produce returns on investment that exceed its cost of capital. The company can develop the next generation of drugs before generic competition appears thanks to the patents. Furthermore, even though Pfizer has a wide range of products, there is some product concentration, as Prevnar accounts for slightly more than 10% of total sales (not including sales of the COVID-19 vaccine).However, because of the vaccine's complicated manufacturing process and comparatively low cost, we don't anticipate typical generic competition. Ibrance and Eliquis each account for nearly 10% of sales. On the other hand, we anticipate that new products will eventually lessen the competition from generic versions of important medications. In order to lessen the pressure on margins from lost sales of high-margin drugs, Pfizer's operating structure permits cost-cutting after patent losses. All things considered, Pfizer's well-established product line generates the massive cash flows required to cover the typical $800 million in development expenses for each new medication. For smaller pharmaceutical companies without Pfizer's resources, the company's robust distribution network positions it as a solid partner. On April 15, President Donald Trump issued an executive order outlining possible policy changes intended to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals in the United States. The biopharma industry is looking forward to these changes because they have the potential to either help or hurt innovation. In the worst situation, international price benchmarks have the potential to drastically cut US drug prices and lessen financial incentives for international drug development. On the plus side, eliminating the "pill penalty" that only grants small molecule medications nine years of Medicare negotiation protection may promote innovation across all treatment modalities. Trump's executive order may have a positive or negative impact on the industry, but it has no effect on valuations or uncertainty ratings. The protection period is not specified in Trump's request that US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. collaborate with Congress to address the pill penalty, which is contingent upon Congressional action. Since innovation and a favorable mergers and acquisitions climate support long-term pricing power and offset possible short-term tariff pressure, rising tax rates, and approval delays, the biopharma industry seems undervalued. Due to liver damage in a clinical trial, Pfizer has announced the discontinuation of danuglipron, an oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist. In the anticipated $200 billion global GLP-1 market by 2031, the company sought to provide a potential second-to-market oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist, behind Lilly's orforglipron. Clinical trial failures and declining demand for Pfizer's COVID vaccine and antiviral medication have hurt the company's growth. Because of its diverse pipeline and portfolio, Pfizer is expected to have a wide-moat case, protecting it from the effects of individual program failures, especially those involving high-risk programs like danuglipron. Other medication candidates might benefit from Pfizer's objective of turning danuglipron into a once-daily business could use its $15 billion acquisition budget to fund the development of more sophisticated medication candidates. Efforts in Genetic Engineering: A solid growth driver for Pfizer is the strong pipeline of innovative treatment options, especially in oncology and immunology, which take the leap with cutting-edge scientific technology. To be more specific, Pfizer's resource allocation to immuno-oncology is evident, developing of checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors) and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies. For instance, this method of treatment mitigates the immune system's ability to detect and destroy the specified cancer cells by varying the immune system response or, in some cases, by using specially modified T-cells that can identify the particular antigens on tumors that are solely expressed in those particular tumors, which are in question. This is the area of advancement where Pfizer has outdone the rest as they are perfecting monoclonal antibody formatsdesigning them in a way that they will bind more tightly and specifically to targets using protein engineeringand they are also testing out bispecific antibodies that trigger switches at two targets, therefore enhancing healing by more than one method. The pipeline is further supported by vast R&D investment in gene therapy and precision medicine, which utilize adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector platforms for gene delivery and next-generation sequencing for actionable mutation identification respectively. These endeavors are aimed at enhancing the overall patient health and market potential of the drugs by changing the treatment convention from testing a wide spectrum to one that is genotype-driven. Clinical trials are usually designed in a way to be fast-tracked so that they can move quickly to the next stage of development. By focusing on such advanced technologies, Pfizer is embarking on capturing a large section of the market with high-growth therapeutic branches, thus gaining revenue through innovation guided by complex disease biology. Revenue Growth: The launching of these high-value treatments is expected to increase revenue as well as drive down costs for Pfizer. Most of the drugs that are released in the onco-immunology field possess a technical edge and therapeutic effectiveness, therefore, these new treatements often demand high price. These drugs are capable of pumping up profits significantly once they clear regulatory hurdles and find their way onto the market. take the example of just-above successful immuno-oncology drug sales, which always have brisk selling and marvelous sales. In addition, Pfizer can speed-up the whole clinical process with something like adaptive trial designs, this process will be quicker and thus benefits are obtained faster from the new products. Impact on profitability The weight on profitability depends on the ratio of costs and returns. What is actually known is that lamas like the checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T treatments that are so good require a lot of investment in R&D. But there is an inherent advantage for these drugs thanks to their patent protection that comes with market exclusivity, which in turn, allows Pfizer to keep its pricing strategy stick and generate very high profits. Success in the selling of the product along the lines of this new dimension along with the efficiency of producing more could prove to be the road to better profitability. However, there are barriers such as competition from other drug companies plus the worry of the price cuts from payers that can erode this success. So if Pfizer is able to eliminate the competition and stays ahead in the game by reducing costs as well, these high markups brought about by the introduction of such innovative drugs should positively affect the total profitability of the company. Generic competition, possible changes to government drug pricing policies, the more stringent FDA, and more powerful managed-care and pharmacy benefit managers present Pfizer with difficulties in drug development. In some disease areas, developing new drugs is getting harder, and pharmacy benefit managers and managed-care organizations have grown to be strong players with the ability to bargain for cheaper drug costs. Nearly one-fourth of the company's total sales are generated by its medications, Eliquis, Ibrance, and Xtandi, and they are heavily exposed to the Medicare channel. Given that Pfizer's product portfolio is less vulnerable to potential litigation, the company's base-case annual legal costs, assuming a 50% probability of future costs associated with product governance ESG risks, come close to 1% of non-GAAP net income. Pfizer's valuation multiples highlights their strong financial position and potential undervaluation. Their P/E Non-GAAP ratios7.61 (FY1), 7.42 (FY2), and 7.44 (FY3)are lower than JNJ's 14.00 (FY1) and SNY's 10.80 (FY1), suggesting investors may undervalue our earnings potential. The PEG Non-GAAP (FWD) of 1.49 is competitive, higher than SNY's 0.76 but below JNJ's 1.70, reflecting moderate growth prospects. Pfizer's EV/Sales (TTM) of 2.81 is more conservative than JNJ's 4.21, while the EV/EBITDA (FWD) of 7.13 compares favorably to JNJ's 11.45, indicating operational efficiency. The Price to Book (TTM) of 1.44 is significantly lower than JNJ's 5.23, and our Price to Cash Flow (TTM) of 9.29 beats JNJ's 15.67, underscoring robust cash flow generation. These metrics position Pfizer as a value opportunity among peers After the Seagen acquisition, Pfizer released its 2024 guidance, which included a $8 billion COVID-19 product guidance$5 billion less than anticipated. The business admitted that, excluding sales of COVID-19 products, it would not meet the prior growth-rate projection of 6% from 2020 to 2025. Pfizer reaffirmed its support for the dividend, which is regarded as safe and likely to boost stock valuation, despite the deteriorating outlook. Over the next ten years, the company anticipates steady sales as new products counteract older medications that are losing their patent protection. From the middle of 2023 to the end of 2024, Pfizer is anticipated to reduce operating expenses by $4 billion, which will aid the company in adjusting to the waning pandemic and declining sales of COVID-19 products. Growth could be accelerated through acquisitions, and future margin pressure could be reduced through restructuring initiatives. It is estimated that Pfizer's weighted average cost of capital is 7% and its cost of equity is 7.5%. Activist investor Jeffrey Smith's recent stake worth $407 million could presage the much needed turnarounds at Pfizer. Investors and shareholders can reasonably expect further cost-cuts and an efficient use of capital, leading to higher margins and free cashflow. This case could follow the path of Walt Disney, albeit with less drama, where Jeff Ubben of ValueAct had a pivotal role in Disney's turnaround campaign. The large-cap biopharma company Pfizer's debt size, business cyclicality, and debt maturity outlook all contribute to its sound balance sheet and low risk levels. To support opportunistic acquisitions and handle product litigation issues with little market concern, the company should have a strong enough balance sheet. Pfizer spends slightly less on R&D than the industry average, with a mid- to high-teens percentage of sales. Patent losses are offset by the company's robust pipeline of next-generation medications. The company's investment in cutting-edge new medications, mostly aimed at immunology and oncology, improves its standing and increases returns on capital. For biopharma companies in the sector, this balance sheet strength is essential. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
CBS News
32 minutes ago
- CBS News
Texas beats Texas Tech 10-4 in game 3 of WCWS to win its 1st national championship
Finally, Texas has broken through. Mia Scott hit a grand slam, Teagan Kavan won again, and Texas defeated Texas Tech 10-4 in Game 3 of the Women's College World Series championship series on Friday night to claim its first national title. Texas had lost to Oklahoma in the championship series two of the previous three years. Oklahoma was one of the teams Texas beat on its way to the championship. And Texas coach Mike White finally won in his ninth World Series trip between his coaching stints at Oregon and Texas. "I'm still trying to process the whole thing," White said. "Actually, it's something you dream about." Kavan, a sophomore, allowed no earned runs in all 31 2/3 innings she pitched at the World Series. She went 4-0 with a save in the World Series for the Longhorns and was named Most Outstanding Player. She was happy to win it for White in the Longhorns' first year playing in the Southeastern Conference. "Without coach White, I don't know if we're here," she said. "He's the best. He's so competitive. He wants it just as bad as we do, of course. And he pushes us to be better every day. He makes me a better pitcher mentally and physically. And so there's no one else I'd rather play for. He's the bomb, and I'm glad we got it done for him." Leighann Goode hit a 3-run homer, Kayden Henry had three hits and Scott, Reese Atwood and Katie Stewart each had two hits for Texas (56-12). Texas Tech star pitcher NiJaree Canady, who had thrown every pitch for the Red Raiders through their first five World Series games, was pulled after one inning in Game 3. The two-time National Fastpitch Coaches Association Pitcher of the Year gave up five runs on five hits and only threw 25 pitches. The loss came after she signed an NIL deal worth more than $1 million for the second straight year. Not even support from former Texas Tech football star Patrick Mahomes and his wife, Brittany, who were in attendance, could put the Red Raiders (54-14) over the top. Canady's night started like many of her others, as she struck out the first batter she faced. After that, she didn't resemble the pitcher entered the game leading the nation in wins and ERA. Goode's homer in the first put the Longhorns up 5-0. Texas Tech coach Gerry Glasco said he was pleased with Canady's effort throughout the season, but he pushed her a bit too far. "If I had a game in two days, that's who I want beside me to go to war with," he said. "She's an unbelievable talent." Scott's blast came in the fourth inning and gave Texas a 10-0 lead. Hailey Toney was a bright spot for the Red Raiders. She singled to knock in two runs in the fifth, then singled to knock in another run in the seventh. It was a surprise run for the Red Raiders. Glasco left Louisiana to coach at Texas Tech this season. The team only had three returning players and had to mix a group of newcomers together. They won the Big 12 regular season and tournament titles and reached the World Series for the first time. "To end up in this position, playing for the national title, making it go all the way to three games -- just a historic season, and I'm really proud of my team and the effort that they give us from top to bottom," Glasco said.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rocket Lab Stock Is Soaring Again: Should You Buy It Under $30?
Rocket Lab is gaining a reputation for reliability in the rocket launch and space systems market. The company is building on its capabilities and improving its relationships as a defense contractor. While this young sector shows a lot of great promise, the stock looks overvalued today. 10 stocks we like better than Rocket Lab › Space is the final frontier, and it is now turning into a burgeoning economy. Researchers estimate that the space economy is worth over $500 billion with heavy spending from governments around the world along with private-company partners, and that figure is expected to grow to around $1.8 trillion a year by 2035. This is a huge opportunity for start-ups, perhaps rivaled only by artificial intelligence (AI) over the next decade when it comes to both growth rates and size. One company that dominates (and actually built) the entire space market is SpaceX. It's privately held, but luckily, investors have other space economy stocks that are turning into promising businesses. Enter Rocket Lab (NASDAQ: RKLB), the space flight company increasingly competing with SpaceX and developing promising capabilities to grow its presence in this large market. The stock has begun to soar again and is trading at around $26 as of this writing. Should you buy while shares are still under $30? Rocket Lab began its journey in the space economy with its small Electron rocket. It has now begun to expand and vertically integrate various space economy segments. It just acquired a company called Geost for $275 million. Geost develops optical and infrared capabilities for satellites with a focus on selling to the U.S. government's national security satellites. Rocket Lab is used by the government to launch its payloads into space. Now, it will be helping to build and operate these payloads for customers. It keeps vertically integrating its launch and space systems, which gives it a competitive advantage over other companies that only offer one or the other (SpaceX is the only other vertically integrated player). Rocket Lab offers solar energy, radio systems, and software for companies sending missions operating in space. This is why its backlog was over $1 billion as of the end of last quarter. Electron launch missions will continue throughout 2025, hopefully building on the company's strong safety and reliability record. The next step for the company will be testing and launching its larger Neutron rocket for customers. Testing is underway for this rocket right now with a planned mission for a confidential customer sometime in 2026. Larger rockets mean larger payloads, which means more revenue per launch. It also will give the company more of an opportunity to sell its space systems on these launches. The Neutron is the key for Rocket Lab to take the next step in its capabilities as a space flight company and to grow its backlog and revenue. Defense contracts have been a huge part of Rocket Lab's business. It currently helps with Air Force missions and a hypersonic testing program called HASTE. It was recently added to the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program for its Neutron rocket, another reason why this new rocket is so important for the company's future. A growing relationship with the U.S. government could not have come at a better time for Rocket Lab. The government is set on spending a ton of money on space solutions as the next frontier in national defense. For example, the proposed Golden Dome missile defense project for the U.S. would cost an estimated $175 billion over three years to build. The company would be a prime candidate to win subcontracts for this ambitious project. As the Neutron comes on line and Rocket Lab builds up its capabilities and reputation in the space economy, we should see its backlog climb higher. This is a key indicator for investors to watch. The current backlog will have around half of its revenue recognized over the next 12 months, and half in later periods. In order to grow revenue over the long term, the company will need to grow its backlog and win more contracts from government and commercial customers. There is a lot of potential with Rocket Lab's business, but it might all be priced into the stock (and more) right now. It has a market cap of $12.3 billion. Revenue was only $466 million over the last 12 months. The company has never generated a profit and continues to lose money. If the company is successful with its ambitions to build a vertically integrated space company, it will eventually generate billions of dollars in revenue -- perhaps tens of billions 15 to 20 years from now. However, that is a long way off, and the stock looks fully priced versus what the company can accomplish in the next few years. For this reason, the stock looks like one to avoid even with the price under $30. The business may be promising, but the market is getting ahead of itself with Rocket Lab at the moment. This is a high-risk stock to keep out of your portfolio right now. Before you buy stock in Rocket Lab, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Rocket Lab wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $668,538!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $869,841!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 789% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Brett Schafer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Rocket Lab USA. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Rocket Lab Stock Is Soaring Again: Should You Buy It Under $30? was originally published by The Motley Fool
