Expected price range
Each range is set from the stock’s recent price history and our Strong Sell rating, using its own 1-year realised volatility (92% annualised) as the width of a ~68% statistical band, and checked against that rating so the range leans the same way as our view. Starting price $26.33 (close 2026-11-09). The stock traded between $20.33 and $51.77 over the last 6 months and between $17.99 and $51.77 over the last year. This is an illustration of where our view and normal volatility point, not a forecast, price target or investment advice; the stock can move outside it.
| Company | Nov 25 | Dec 25 | Jan 26 | Feb 26 | Mar 26 | Apr 26 | May 26 | Jun 26 | Jul 26 | Aug 26 | Sep 26 | Oct 26 | 12-Mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VOYG | -26% | +16% | +17% | -13% | -12% | +13% | +88% | -35% | -24% | +37% | -10% | -13% | -14% |
| LUNR | -20% | +71% | +17% | -13% | +13% | +37% | +73% | -51% | -42% | +24% | -7% | -25% | -11% |
| RDW | -30% | +38% | +55% | -23% | -6% | +8% | +167% | -50% | -30% | +24% | -2% | -20% | +7% |
| RKLB | -33% | +66% | +15% | -14% | -7% | +28% | +74% | -29% | -36% | -2% | +9% | -21% | -13% |
| LMT | -7% | +6% | +31% | +4% | -8% | -14% | +2% | -3% | +14% | -4% | -9% | +25% | +33% |
| NOC | -2% | +0% | +21% | +5% | -6% | -15% | -3% | -9% | +7% | -0% | -10% | +15% | -3% |
Source: Yahoo Finance monthly adjusted close.
<a id="lf0-thesis"></a>
Quick Thesis
- Rated strong sell — revenue is growing, but cash burn and leverage remain severe.
- Strongest strength: Q3 2026 revenue reached <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Quarterly Income Statement: Total Revenue (Q3 2026)">$88.7M</span>, up <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Derived calculation: (Q3 2026 Total Revenue $88.7M – Q3 2025 Total Revenue $39.6M) ÷ Q3 2025 Total Revenue $39.6M = 124.1%">124.1%</span> year over year.
- Biggest risk: levered free cash flow was <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Key Statistics: Levered Free Cash Flow (TTM)">$-164.1M</span> TTM, with debt/equity at <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Key Statistics (Balance Sheet): Total Debt/Equity % (mrq)">239.2%</span>.
- Valuation is rich for a loss-making name at <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Key Statistics: EV/Revenue">8.4x</span> EV/revenue and <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Key Statistics: FCF Yield % (TTM)">-10.1%</span> FCF yield.
- I would only turn less negative if EBITDA losses narrow materially and revenue stays above <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Quarterly Income Statement: Total Revenue (Q3 2026)">$80M</span>.
<a id="lf0-summary"></a>
Executive Summary
We’ll begin tracking this call’s performance since publication once sufficient adjusted-close data is available.
I would put my rating as a strong sell because Voyager is still burning cash at a scale that the current revenue run rate does not yet support. Revenue reached <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Quarterly Income Statement: Total Revenue (Q3 2026)">$88.7M</span> in Q3 2026, but EBITDA was still $-47.5M and levered free cash flow was <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Key Statistics: Levered Free Cash Flow (TTM)">$-164.1M</span> TTM, so the business is growing into a larger funding need rather than into self-sustaining earnings. The stock already trades at <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Key Statistics: EV/Revenue">8.4x</span> EV/revenue and 7.3x price/sales, which leaves little room for execution slippage while margins remain deeply negative. I would only move toward a buy if quarterly revenue stays above <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Quarterly Income Statement: Total Revenue (Q3 2026)">$80M</span> and EBITDA losses narrow to better than $-30M per quarter, because that would show the cost base is finally scaling.
<a id="lf0-business"></a>
Company Profile
Voyager Technologies develops defense and space systems across three segments: Defense & National Security, Space Solutions, and Starlab Space Stations. It sells mission hardware, software, engineering services, mission operations, and joint-venture development work, and it reported $166.4M of revenue in FY2025. The company was founded in 2019 and has grown through 12 acquisitions, including EMSI for AI-based target recognition, ExoTerra for electric propulsion, and Estes for energetics and propulsion materials. It also received $183.2M of its $217.5M NASA development grant for Starlab, a commercial space station intended to replace the ISS with a planned 2029 launch. Voyager operates from 14 locations with about 800 employees and is listed on Nasdaq under VOYG.
Economic Moat
Business Model
Voyager’s edge is the way it bundles propulsion, guidance, intelligence, communications, and mission services into one integrated offer. I feel that a competitor would struggle to copy that quickly because the company has already stitched together 12 acquisitions since 2019 and now spans three segments rather than one product line. According to its SEC filings, that stack now includes controllable solid propulsion for Lockheed Martin’s Next Generation Interceptor, AI-driven signals intelligence through EMSI, and flight-proven maneuver systems through ExoTerra, so Voyager is selling a mission stack rather than a single subsystem. Its history also matters: more than 1,400 missions to the International Space Station, over 330 satellites deployed, and more than 220 spacecraft subsystems supplied give customers proof that the platform works in real programs. That operating depth is consistent with the moat thesis, but the financials later in the article show that the moat is still being monetized rather than fully converted into profit.
Business & Operating Risks
The most material disclosed risk is customer concentration. The U.S. government supplied about 86.0% of revenue in 2025 and 83.9% in 2024, while 86.3% of funded backlog sat with that same customer at December 31, 2025. That means a shift in defense priorities, a delay in appropriations, or a contract protest can hit revenue and cash flow quickly. Fixed-price development work is the next risk: those contracts were 13.9% of revenue in 2025, and the filing warns that cost overruns from inflation, supplier problems, or technical difficulty can produce substantial losses. Starlab is the largest project risk because it is capital intensive and still unfunded in full, with a design, manufacture, and launch cost of roughly $2.8B to $3.3B and only $34.3M of eligible NASA grant proceeds remaining at year-end 2025. The disclosed risks do not break the moat itself, but they do threaten the managed-cost and backlog-conversion advantages that the integrated platform is supposed to create.
Management Discussion & Analysis
Management is responding to those risks by funding scale first and profitability later. Voyager raised $409.4M from the June 12, 2025 IPO, issued $460M of 0.75% Convertible Senior Notes due 2030, and used $66.7M of note proceeds to repurchase 1,163,000 shares at $23.83 per share, which tells me the balance sheet is being used to support growth and manage dilution rather than to de-lever. Cash and cash equivalents were $491.3M, with $220.0M of undrawn revolver capacity, so liquidity is adequate for now, but operating cash flow was $-128.7M TTM and levered free cash flow was <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Key Statistics: Levered Free Cash Flow (TTM)">$-164.1M</span> TTM, which means that cushion is being consumed. Revenue rose to $166.4M in 2025 from $144.2M in 2024, yet loss from operations widened to $108.5M from $48.4M, so the top line is moving in the right direction while the cost structure is still outpacing it. The company is also leaning on backlog conversion, with total backlog of $265.6M and funded backlog of $146.1M, but the concentration in U.S. government work keeps that conversion exposed to budget timing.
Recent Events
The June 1, 2026 agreement to acquire Astrobotic Technology is the most important recent event because it could deepen Voyager’s robotics and lunar capability. I view that as strategically positive if the integration works, but it also adds execution risk because the deal still needs approvals and the share issuance will dilute holders before any synergies are proven. Shareholders also approved redomestication from Delaware to Texas on May 29, 2026, which may improve legal flexibility, but it does not change the operating picture on its own. The March 9 and May 4, 2026 8-Ks were routine earnings releases, so they mainly confirm that the company is still reporting on schedule. Taken together, the recent filings support the platform thesis, but they do not yet show that the moat is translating into better economics.
Financial Analysis
LF0 has published standalone analyses of these peers: Intuitive Machines (LUNR) (rated Strong Sell); Redwire (RDW) (rated Sell); Northrop Grumman (NOC) (rated Hold).
<a id="lf0-growth"></a>
Growth
VOYG — Financial Growth (Quarterly, USD Mil)
| Metric | 2025-09-30 | 2025-12-31 | 2026-03-31 | 2026-06-30 | 2026-09-30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| REVENUE (USD Mil) | 39.6 | 46.7 | 35.2 | 52.7 | 88.7 |
| EBIT (USD Mil) | -19.9 | -30.4 | -40.6 | -49 | -59.4 |
| EBITDA (USD Mil) | -16.3 | -24.3 | -33.4 | -40 | -47.5 |
| NET INCOME (USD Mil) | -16.3 | -30.2 | -44 | -46.5 | -55.7 |
| DILUTED EPS | -0.3 | -0.5 | -0.8 | -0.8 | -0.9 |
Source: Yahoo Finance — Quarterly Financial Statements
Voyager’s revenue stepped up from $39.6M in Q3 2025 to $46.7M in Q4 2025, dipped to $35.2M in Q1 2026, and then rebounded to $52.7M in Q2 2026 and <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Quarterly Income Statement: Total Revenue (Q3 2026)">$88.7M</span> in Q3 2026. That latest quarter was up <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Derived calculation: (Q3 2026 Total Revenue $88.7M – Q3 2025 Total Revenue $39.6M) ÷ Q3 2025 Total Revenue $39.6M = 124.1%">124.1%</span> year over year, which is the clearest bull point in the model. EBITDA did not keep pace, however, worsening from $-16.3M in Q3 2025 to $-47.5M in Q3 2026, so the company is scaling sales faster than it is scaling earnings. The Q1 dip versus Q4 was a sharp swing, and I read that as volatility rather than a smooth acceleration path.
Growth versus peers
| Company | Revenue TTM (USD Mil) | Revenue Growth YoY % | Diluted EPS TTM |
|---|---|---|---|
| <span class="lf0-primary">VOYG</span> | 223.4 | 124.1% | -2.9 |
| LUNR | 490.1 | 309.8% | -0.9 |
| RDW | 431.9 | 5.4% | -1.2 |
| RKLB | 769.1 | 62.0% | -0.3 |
| LMT | 79,116 | 11.3% | 28.2 |
| NOC | 43,591 | 6.7% | 31.7 |
Source: Yahoo Finance
Voyager’s revenue grew <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Derived calculation: (TTM revenue $223.4M – prior TTM revenue $99.7M) ÷ prior TTM revenue $99.7M = 124.1%">124.1%</span> TTM to $223.4M, which trails LUNR’s 309.8% on $490.1M and RKLB’s 62.0% on $769.1M, while it far exceeds RDW’s 5.4% on $431.9M and the mature defense names LMT at 11.3% and NOC at 6.7%. That mix says Voyager is still scaling fast enough to justify a growth multiple versus the primes, but it is not the fastest grower in the space, so I would not pay RKLB-style growth pricing for it.
<a id="lf0-profitability"></a>
Profitability
TTM gross margin was 10.4%, which shows the product layer is still positive before overhead, but TTM operating margin of -69.8% and EBITDA margin of -71.8% mean the company is spending far more on engineering, integration, and corporate costs than it earns at the gross profit line. That gap tells me this is still an early-stage platform, not a scaled operating model, so the key question is whether overhead can be spread across a much larger revenue base. TTM net margin was -79%, return on assets was -10.2%, and return on equity was -37.7%, confirming that the business is not yet converting assets or equity capital into profit. The ROE versus ROA gap also suggests leverage is amplifying weak returns rather than creating efficient equity returns.
Profitability versus peers
| Company | Operating Margin (TTM) | Net Margin (TTM) | Return on Assets (TTM) | Return on Equity (TTM) | Gross Margin (TTM) | EBITDA Margin (TTM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <span class="lf0-primary">VOYG</span> | -69.8% | -79.0% | -10.2% | -37.7% | 10.4% | -71.8% |
| LUNR | -18.1% | -26.6% | -5.5% | -30.8% | 16.4% | -15.2% |
| RDW | -23.2% | -52.4% | -6.1% | -17.1% | 24.1% | -27.2% |
| RKLB | -24.6% | -21.5% | -4.6% | -7.9% | 37.3% | -19.6% |
| LMT | 11.4% | 8.2% | 8.6% | 80.2% | 11.7% | 12.5% |
| NOC | 12.9% | 10.4% | 7.1% | 26.1% | 20.0% | 16.8% |
Source: Yahoo Finance
Voyager’s gross margin is 10.4%, below LUNR at 16.4%, RDW at 24.1%, RKLB at 37.3%, and the defense peers at 11.7% for LMT and 20.0% for NOC. Its operating margin of -69.8% and EBITDA margin of -71.8% are also far worse than LUNR at -18.1% and -15.2%, RDW at -23.2% and -27.2%, and RKLB at -24.6% and -19.6%. That combination points to a cost problem and a scale problem, not just a one-quarter overhead issue.
<a id="lf0-valuation"></a>
Valuation
Voyager trades at <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Key Statistics: EV/Revenue">8.4x</span> EV/revenue and 7.3x price/sales on trailing twelve months, while forward P/E is -17.5x on forward EPS of -$1.50. I think the market is pricing this as a revenue multiple story, not an earnings story, because the current multiple already assumes a meaningful margin recovery that is not visible in cash flow yet. At $26.2 per share, the stock also trades at 4.6x book value and 2.9x cash per share, so it is not being valued as a cash-rich balance sheet play. On the analysis here, I would put fair value in a wide range of roughly $20–$40 per share, which sits below the $41.8 analyst mean but inside the $21–$54 consensus band from 11 opinions; that tells me the Street is more constructive than I am on the speed of margin repair. I would also frame the implied EPS path as still weak: forward EPS is -$1.50, while peers such as LUNR at -$0.2, RDW at -$0.3, and RKLB at $0.1 are closer to breakeven or already positive on a forward basis, so Voyager’s earnings profile remains the least mature of the group. The stock is therefore rich for a cash-burning name, even if the balance sheet cash softens the downside somewhat.
Valuation versus peers
| Company | Current Share Price (USD) | Trailing P/E | Forward P/E | EV/Revenue | EV/EBITDA | Price/Sales (TTM) | Price/Book (mrq) | Market Cap (USD Mil) | Enterprise Value (USD Mil) | Beta (5Y Monthly) | FCF Yield % (TTM) | Forward EPS | Analyst Target Price – Low | Analyst Target Price – Mean | Analyst Target Price – High | # Analyst Opinions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <span class="lf0-primary">VOYG</span> | 26.2 | — | -17.5 | 8.4 | -11.7 | 7.3 | 4.6 | 1,627 | 1,867 | — | -10.1% | -1.5 | 21 | 41.8 | 54 | 11 |
| LUNR | 11.4 | — | -73.8 | 6.4 | -42.1 | 3.8 | -6.7 | 1,847 | 3,130 | 1.91 | -4.3% | -0.2 | 13 | 27.1 | 39 | 9 |
| RDW | 7.7 | — | -25.3 | 3.2 | -11.9 | 4.4 | 1.2 | 1,918 | 1,398 | 3.13 | -3.5% | -0.3 | 8 | 12.7 | 15 | 9 |
| RKLB | 57.2 | — | 996 | 38.5 | -196.6 | 47.6 | 9.8 | 36,613 | 29,586 | 3.18 | -0.7% | 0.1 | 64 | 102.2 | 150 | 20 |
| LMT | 577.6 | 20.5 | 17.4 | 1.8 | 14.8 | 1.7 | 13.2 | 133,435 | 145,536 | 0.08 | 4.2% | 33.3 | 498 | 660.9 | 835 | 22 |
| NOC | 534.9 | 16.9 | 17.9 | 2 | 12.1 | 1.7 | 4.1 | 75,992 | 88,240 | -0.14 | 4.1% | 29.9 | 430 | 635.2 | 815 | 24 |
Source: Yahoo Finance
Voyager’s EV/revenue of <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Key Statistics: EV/Revenue">8.4x</span> and price/sales of 7.3x sit above LUNR at 6.4x and 3.8x, RDW at 3.2x and 4.4x, and far above LMT at 1.8x and NOC at 2.0x. Using the peer EV/revenue range of 1.8x to 38.5x on Voyager’s $223.4M revenue gives an implied enterprise value of about $404M to $8.6B; netting $882.5M of debt and $553.6M of cash and dividing by 56.3M shares implies roughly $1.6 to $144.0 per share, which is too wide to be a clean anchor and shows how much optionality is embedded in the stock. I think the market is already giving Voyager credit for a recovery that still needs to show up in earnings, and the premium multiple is harder to defend when the balance sheet is still consuming cash.
<a id="lf0-leverage"></a>
Leverage
Voyager’s leverage is manageable, but it is not a source of strength. Total debt/equity was <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Key Statistics (Balance Sheet): Total Debt/Equity % (mrq)">239.2%</span> in mrq, current ratio was 2.934x, and total debt was $882.5M, so the balance sheet is levered but still has near-term liquidity cover. Cash generation is the weak point: operating cash flow was $-128.7M TTM and levered free cash flow was <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Key Statistics: Levered Free Cash Flow (TTM)">$-164.1M</span> TTM, while net debt/EBITDA was -2.1x and FCF margin was -73.5%. The negative net debt/EBITDA figure reflects negative EBITDA rather than balance-sheet strength, which means the company is still dependent on financing and grant proceeds instead of internal self-funding. In my view, that is a medium refinancing risk because the current ratio gives some cushion, but the cash burn keeps eroding it.
Leverage versus peers
| Company | Total Debt/Equity % (mrq) | Current Ratio (mrq) | Total Debt (mrq, USD Mil) | Operating Cash Flow TTM (USD Mil) | Free Cash Flow TTM (USD Mil) | Net Debt/EBITDA (TTM) | FCF Margin % (TTM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <span class="lf0-primary">VOYG</span> | 239.2 | 2.9 | 882.5 | -128.7 | -164.1 | -2.1 | -73.5% |
| LUNR | 52.8 | 1.7 | 481.4 | -126.3 | -80 | -1.5 | -16.3% |
| RDW | 5.6 | 4.2 | 89.9 | -119.5 | -67.6 | 3.4 | -15.7% |
| RKLB | 3.8 | 5.5 | 133.7 | -222.5 | -252 | 14.4 | -32.8% |
| LMT | 203.7 | 1.3 | 20,498 | 10,112 | 5,645.5 | 1.5 | 7.1% |
| NOC | 93.1 | 1.2 | 17,399 | 5,266 | 3,143.1 | 1.9 | 7.2% |
Source: Yahoo Finance
Voyager’s debt/equity is <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Key Statistics (Balance Sheet): Total Debt/Equity % (mrq)">239.2%</span>, versus LUNR at 52.8%, RDW at 5.6%, RKLB at 3.8%, LMT at 203.7%, and NOC at 93.1%, and its FCF margin is -73.5%, worse than LUNR at -16.3%, RDW at -15.7%, and RKLB at -32.8%. The negative net debt/EBITDA of -2.1x reflects negative EBITDA rather than balance-sheet strength, so this is not a cash-rich peer story. It is a business still consuming cash faster than it can convert revenue, which is why the valuation premium looks hard to justify on a peer basis.
<a id="lf0-insiders"></a>
Insider Activity
The insider record shows no open-market purchases or sales in the 2026-01-13 to 2026-05-29 window, so the sample is limited to award activity. With no open-market buys and no open-market sells across 12 Form 4 filings, I do not read a directional signal from insider trading here. The absence of trading is not a positive signal; it is simply neutral.
<a id="lf0-conclusion"></a>
Conclusion
I would put my rating as a strong sell because the core tension in this name is unresolved: revenue is accelerating, but the company is still not converting that growth into cash or earnings. Q3 2026 revenue reached <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Quarterly Income Statement: Total Revenue (Q3 2026)">$88.7M</span>, yet EBITDA was still $-47.5M and levered free cash flow was <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Key Statistics: Levered Free Cash Flow (TTM)">$-164.1M</span> TTM, so the recent top-line step-up has not yet shown up in the numbers that matter most for equity holders.
The bull case is straightforward. If Voyager can keep quarterly revenue above <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Quarterly Income Statement: Total Revenue (Q3 2026)">$80M</span> for two more quarters and narrow EBITDA losses to better than $-30M per quarter, that would tell me the fixed-cost base is finally being absorbed and the business is moving toward a more self-funding model. On the current TTM revenue base of $223.4M, a move in EBITDA margin from -71.8% toward -50.0% would still leave the company loss-making, but it would materially improve the funding outlook and make the Astrobotic acquisition easier to underwrite.
The bear case is just as clear. If quarterly revenue falls back below $50M or EBITDA losses widen beyond $-50M per quarter for two straight quarters, I would view the recent step-up as unstable and the valuation premium as increasingly difficult to defend. A second warning sign would be levered free cash flow staying worse than $-150M TTM while debt remains near $882.5M, because that would leave the company dependent on external capital without showing operating leverage.
Weighing both paths, I still lean to the downside because the cash burn is too large relative to the scale of the business. The next two quarters should show whether Voyager is moving toward a self-funding model or simply growing into a larger funding need, and until that answer is clearer, strong sell is the right call.
What to Watch Next
- Quarterly revenue above <span class="lf0-key" data-src="Yahoo Finance — Quarterly Income Statement: Total Revenue (Q3 2026)">$80M</span> — would support a move toward a less negative rating.
- EBITDA losses better than $-30M per quarter — would show the cost base is scaling.
- Levered free cash flow better than $-150M TTM — would reduce funding pressure.
- Quarterly revenue back below $50M — would argue the recent step-up was not durable.
- Debt near $882.5M with no cash burn improvement — would keep refinancing risk elevated.
What’s your take? I rated Voyager Technologies (VOYG) STRONG SELL above — but the goal here is to get this right, not just to publish an opinion. What would you add to this analysis, or which risk or catalyst do you think I’m under- or over-weighting? Tell me in the comments.
Our track record: every directional call is tracked publicly on The Scorecard, and Stocks Covered lists every company we have rated and when.
Sources
- SEC 10-K Annual Report — filed 2026-03-10
- SEC 8-K Filing (2026-06-04)
- SEC 8-K Filing (2026-06-01)
- SEC 8-K Filing (2026-05-04)
- SEC 8-K Filing (2026-03-09)
- SEC Form 4 Insider Transaction (2026-06-01)
- SEC Form 4 Insider Transaction (2026-06-01)
- SEC Form 4 Insider Transaction (2026-06-01)
Data sourced from Yahoo Finance and SEC EDGAR. Not investment advice.
Leave a Comment