AbCellera brings together:

• Proven antibody-discovery technology
• Internally owned drug programs
• Partner-funded programs with milestone and royalty economics
• Clinical-stage assets
• Large-scale discovery, development and manufacturing infrastructure
• Government-supported infrastructure investment
• Transitioning from a partnership driven company toward a full fledged pharmaceutical company.

The key idea is simple: the platform has already demonstrated its ability to generate clinically useful antibodies.

A diversified drug pipeline

Rather than valuing AbCellera like a single-drug biotech, it can be viewed as a portfolio of independent drug programs.

Portfolio value ≈ value per program × number of programs

Each candidate has a relatively low probability of ultimately reaching approval, but a successful drug can generate hundreds of millions—or potentially billions—of dollars in value.

The portfolio can therefore expand in two ways:

• Existing programs advance through development
• AbCellera continuously generates new programs

This makes the model fundamentally different from a biotech company dependent on a small, fixed pipeline.

Asymmetric drug economics

Drug development has high failure rates but potentially enormous rewards.

Typical economics:

• Development can take roughly a decade
• Most drug candidates ultimately fail
• Successful drugs can generate substantial lifetime revenue
• Partnered programs can produce milestones and royalties
• Fully owned programs allow AbCellera to retain significantly more economics

The result is a portfolio where many programs may contribute little, while a small number of major successes could create substantial value.

Platform has proven commercial success

COVID provided an unusually fast real-world validation of AbCellera’s platform.

AbCellera rapidly identified an antibody candidate that Eli Lilly ultimately commercialized. The resulting programs generated roughly $1B in cumulative royalty revenue for AbCellera before viral variants reduced their relevance.

This matters because AbCellera's capabilities aren't purely theoretical—the platform has already produced a commercially successful medicine at scale.

Diversification reduces single-drug risk

A typical early-stage biotech may spend hundreds of millions developing one or two drugs. If those programs fail, much of the company’s value can disappear.

AbCellera works differently.

Its development cycle looks more like:

Partners → programs → biological data + improved technology → faster discovery → better molecules → more programs → repeat

One clinical failure therefore does not necessarily invalidate the broader platform.

The long-term question becomes whether AbCellera can consistently generate competitive drug candidates across many programs, rather than whether one specific molecule succeeds.

A repeatable drug-creation engine

AbCellera isn't simply developing individual drugs.

It is building infrastructure designed to repeatedly discover and advance new drug candidates.

More programs generate more biological data. More data can improve discovery capabilities. Better discovery can attract additional partners and support more internally owned programs.

That creates the potential for a self-reinforcing drug-development platform where the number and quality of opportunities can expand over time.

Partnerships

AbCellera has worked with dozens of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

The appeal for partners is straightforward:

Instead of building every specialized antibody-discovery capability internally, pharmaceutical companies can use AbCellera's platform to pursue difficult biological targets.

AbCellera can receive:

upfront payments → research payments → milestones → royalties

while internally developed programs provide the opportunity to retain substantially more of a drug's eventual economics.

Capturing more of the drug value chain

AbCellera has evolved substantially beyond its original discovery-partnership model.

It is no longer simply discovering antibodies for partners.

It is becoming a clinical-stage drug developer itself, with internally developed programs including ABCL635 and ABCL575.

That changes the potential economics considerably:

Discovery partner: captures a smaller portion of a successful drug's economics.

Drug owner: can potentially retain a majority of a drug's value.

AbCellera is therefore expanding across:

antibody discovery → drug creation → clinical development → potential commercialization

ABCL635 validates the internal model

ABCL635 is particularly important because it originated from AbCellera's own GPCR/ion-channel discovery capabilities and has produced positive Phase 2 results.

A single dose produced:

• 83% reduction in hot-flash frequency at Week 4
• Versus 33% for placebo
• 58% reduction in severity
• Versus 12% for placebo

These results provide important evidence that AbCellera can use its platform not only to discover drugs for partners, but also to create promising internally owned clinical assets.

Access to large pharmaceutical markets

Antibody medicines already represent a major pharmaceutical category.

But AbCellera's opportunity isn't limited to one disease or therapeutic market.

Its platform can potentially generate medicines across:

endocrinology + women's health + immunology + oncology + additional therapeutic areas

The addressable opportunity therefore spans the combined pharmaceutical markets where AbCellera's technology can generate differentiated medicines.

A continuously expanding pipeline

AbCellera's portfolio isn't designed to remain fixed.

If the company simply developed a limited group of candidates and waited for them to succeed or fail, it would still resemble a diversified biotech.

Instead, the platform is designed to continually generate additional candidates.

Therefore:

More programs + advancing programs + improving technology = potentially greater portfolio value over time

Programs can also become substantially more valuable as they progress from:

discovery → preclinical → Phase 1 → Phase 2 → Phase 3 → approval

because each successful stage reduces some of the uncertainty surrounding the asset.

Risk versus potential reward

AbCellera has multiple underlying sources of potential value:

ABCL635 + ABCL575 + future internal drugs + partnered programs + royalties + milestones + discovery platform + manufacturing infrastructure

The biggest risks remain clinical failures, continued cash burn and the cost of developing internally owned drugs.

But the potential returns are highly asymmetric. A successful blockbuster could create billions of dollars in value, while AbCellera continues generating and advancing additional drug candidates.

If AbCellera can repeatedly discover and develop clinically successful antibodies, it could eventually be valued less like a conventional early-stage biotech and more like a scalable, integrated drug-development platform with a continuously expanding pipeline.

At $9.11/share and roughly a $4.2B market cap, a literal 100× from here means ~$420B market cap and ~$911/share before accounting for future dilution - of which I believe there won't be much as Ondas has some cash and huge revenue growth starting from a sizeable base with 50% margins.

It does seem like a far cry for any company to grow 100x in short time period but there is a conceivable path if ONDS evolves into a major global defense-autonomy platform rather than remaining a niche drone manufacturer.

The starting point is already extremely strong. ONDS did $50.1M of Q1 2026 revenue, +1,065% YoY, and backlog reached roughly $457M. After adding DZYNE and Omnisys, management increased 2026 revenue guidance to at least $525M, versus $390M previously, and that guidance doesn't yet include Cyberhawk.

Here's what a genuine 100× pathway could look like:

First because of heavy dilution the stock is being weighed down a lot - but those funds are being used to make very high growth acquisitions such as Dzyne. Because Revenue is growing 10x YoY it is reasonable to expect revenue to continue growing a lot especially with the type of acquisitions being made. So a 10x in the near term isn't unlikely. The multiple should be 80x Revenue not 8x giving ONDS a $42B valuation instead of the current $4.2B.

Stage	Revenue	Potential multiple	Valuation
2026	$525M+	~8×[implied]	~$4.2B
2028	$2B	12×	$24B
2030	$5B	15×	$75B
2033	$10B	15×	$150B
2035+	$20–25B	17–20×	$340–500B

So 100× probably requires something around $20–25B of annual revenue, assuming ONDS remains a very high-growth, strategically important company worthy of a premium valuation.

The key is that DZYNE radically expands what ONDS could become. ONDS says the acquisition takes it into long-endurance ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance], Group 4/5 UAS, counter-UAS, autonomous effects and affordable-mass systems—much larger defense categories than its original automated drone-in-a-box market. Management also says DZYNE adds meaningful revenue, attractive gross margins and positive EBITDA.

For the $400B+ outcome, I think five things would have to happen simultaneously:

• Counter-UAS becomes huge. Iron Drone/Raider-type systems become standard infrastructure protecting sensitive sites such as military bases, borders, airports, energy infrastructure and cities.
• DZYNE becomes a major defense prime. The US government is actively moving toward large-scale autonomous drone formations and swarming concepts. Dyzne's autonomous aircraft need to move from hundreds of millions of revenue toward several billions as programs transition into production.
• Ondas dominates autonomous drone infrastructure. Optimus/Airobotics becomes a recurring platform deployed across cities, police departments, industrial sites, utilities, railroads and military installations.
• Software/AI becomes significant. The Palantir relationship and Ondas' own autonomy stack turn the company into more than hardware—command-and-control, fleet management, autonomous missions, data and AI could support much higher margins and valuation multiples. The Palantir partnership specifically integrates Foundry into ONDS autonomous systems.
• Acquisitions continue working. ONDS essentially becomes a consolidator of autonomous-defense companies, buying promising platforms for synergy and using its sales/manufacturing/customer network to scale them globally.

There is also a mathematical reason the thesis isn't completely absurd. Going from management's $525M+ 2026 revenue target to $20B requires about 38× revenue growth. Over ten years, that's roughly a 44% revenue CAGR. That's extraordinarily difficult, but it's much different from saying the operating business itself needs to grow 100×.

The biggest perceived issue is dilution. As mentioned earlier going forward dilution will be minimal because revenue growth and margins themselves should fund most of the expansion.

My very-long-term spectrum would be roughly:

Bear: $3–5B revenue → $20–40B valuation → 5–10×

Strong execution: $8–12B revenue → $100–180B valuation → 25–40×

Extreme bull / defense platform: $20–25B+ revenue → $350–500B+ valuation → ~80–120×

ONDS needs to become something closer to a next-generation Lockheed/Palantir hybrid for autonomous warfare, with DZYNE + counter-UAS + autonomous drones + AI/software all scaling together. That's the scenario where today's ~$4B valuation starts looking very undervalued.

I am very big on NBIS even though I don't hold it in my main portfolio. I bought it at $88 (kinda late to it) in my other portfolio. It is one of my favourite stocks for 2026.

The main reason I'm not worried about it at all is that:

• Demand risk looks relatively low. Hyperscalers and AI labs still need enormous amounts of GPU capacity, as industry-wide cloud/AI backlogs remain huge from Google to Oracle and many more.

Company	Latest backlog / RPO	Approx. market cap	Backlog as % of market cap
Oracle	$638B	~$410B	~156%
Microsoft	$678B	~$3.7T	~18%
Amazon	~$496B	~$3.0T	~17%
Alphabet	$519.5B	~$4.5T	~12%

• GPUs becoming outdated rendering data centers obsolete won't happen- Every AI infrastructure provider—Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Oracle, CoreWeave, etc.—has to continuously refresh accelerators. NBIS is exposed to the same technology cycle, not a special one. So this isn't an NBIS exclusive risk but an industry wide one.
• Newer GPUs can actually increase NBIS's revenue opportunity. Higher-value Blackwell/Rubin-class infrastructure can command substantially more revenue per MW if utilization stays high.
• Its biggest bottleneck is not being able to quickly meet demand. If NBIS can build and energize data centers quickly enough, demand should absorb a lot of that capacity.
• Long-term contracts/backlog reduce some demand uncertainty. Contracted capacity gives better revenue visibility than a pure spot-compute business.
• It's not just renting commodity GPUs. The value proposition includes the full AI cloud stack, infrastructure, orchestration and large-scale clusters.

What I would worry about with NBIS is execution: massive capex requirements, financing/dilution, power availability, construction delays, customer concentration, and whether returns on all that infrastructure remain attractive as competition increases.

Those are much more important risks than “today's Nvidia GPUs eventually become outdated.”