News
Tesla Model S vs Porsche Taycan comparison finally hits the nail on the head
For the longest time, the Tesla Model S and the Porsche Taycan have been compared in a manner that one would not necessarily be considered completely fair. Some would focus on the badge and build quality and automatically give the win to Porsche, while some would focus on tech and driver-assist features and give the win automatically to Tesla. But giving the crown of the best luxury EV on the market today is no joke, and comparing these two vehicles requires a deep dive.
This is something that Roadshow was actually able to accomplish recently. In a video shared on its YouTube channel, the motoring publication compared the Model S and the Taycan on five fronts: Range and Charging, Acceleration, Handling, Design, and Price and Value. Using this metric, the publication was able to reach a result that is actually very fair to both vehicles.
First up is range and charging, and in this sense, there is really no contest. Tesla’s years of work on battery research has paid off in spades, and this is shown by the Model S’ nearly 400-mile range. The Supercharger Network is icing on the cake, providing the Model S with a convenient way to charge its batteries during road trips. The Taycan has a tendency to exceed its EPA range figures, and it’s supported by a vast charging network too. But compared to Tesla’s raw range and Supercharger Network, the gap is simply too big. One win for Tesla.
Acceleration is something that both vehicles excel at. In this sense, Roadshow noted that the top-tier versions of the two premium EVs, the Model S Performance and the Taycan Turbo S, are both insanely quick. The Taycan Turbo S is rated by Porsche with a 0-60 time of 2.6 seconds, but tests from publications have recorded the vehicle hitting 2.4 seconds instead. This was originally faster than the Model S Performance’s 2.5 seconds, but after Tesla’s Cheetah Stance Launch Mode update, the flagship sedan could now hit 60 mph in 2.3 seconds instead. That’s another win for Tesla, but only just.
Things change when handling is discussed. While both are large vehicles, Roadshow noted that the Taycan simply feels much better to throw around corners. This is where Porsche’s pedigree comes to light as a veteran sports car maker, since the Taycan simply feels a lot lighter than its over 5,000-pound weight. The Model S Performance handles great too, but when thrown into the same corners at the same speed as the Taycan, the Tesla’s large size simply becomes more evident. The Taycan wins this round.
Design is also something that was given to the Porsche. After all, the Model S has pretty much retained its design since its first iteration that was rolled out eight years ago. Save for a facelift, the Model S is still the same car that broke barriers back in 2012. Thus, the Taycan simply feels much newer and more fresh in this sense. The fact that the Taycan’s interior is filled to the brim with premium materials worthy of its price also adds to its edge against the Tesla Model S.
But when it comes to the price and value of the two vehicles, it is difficult not to be impressed by the Tesla Model S. Roadshow opted to compare the Taycan 4S and the Model S Long Range, which are the more conservatively priced and specced versions of the two cars. But even then, a fully loaded Model S Long Range is still cheaper than a Taycan 4S that is so basic, it doesn’t even have adaptive cruise control. This, ultimately, proves that eight years on, Tesla’s flagship sedan still has a lot of fight left in it, and it’s not about to give up its crown easily either.
-
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
