← META forward model

META · Forward model · Reality Labs · Superintelligence case

What has to happen in Reality Labs

Model as of

This page changes Reality Labs inside the complete META model. Every other vertical, corporate programme and valuation assumption stays in the selected portfolio case.

META forward model
Horizon
Consolidated fair value $1,341.93 all other verticals held in this portfolio case
Final-quarter revenue $2.02B 1% of company revenue
Explicit segment contribution −$68.97B EBITDA less segment capex, before corporate items

Meta's own stated case, taken at face value: Meta Superintelligence Labs is worth the $130-145B a year it is costing, personal superintelligence becomes a product people pay for, business agents replace a chunk of what companies spend on software rather than a chunk of what they spend on ads, and Meta AI takes roughly a quarter of the consumer assistant market on distribution alone - about $26B a year, or four times what Meta earns from Reality Labs, Quest and glasses combined. Advertising still carries it - even here, the ad line is more than three quarters of terminal revenue, which is the finding rather than the flourish. What this case does NOT reach is a company where AI revenue rivals advertising: the two AI lines together would need to be roughly eight times the size this case gives them, and no disclosed driver produces that off two lines earning zero today. The honest version of the bet is that AI shows up as ad revenue - which is where this model already puts most of it.

Reality Labs

Basis quarter$431M
Final quarter$2.02B
Implied CAGR+36%
Final revenue mix1%

Quest headsets, Ray-Ban and Oakley Meta AI glasses, and the software and content around them. $431M of revenue against a $4.62B operating loss in 2026 Q2 - it is 0.7% of the company's revenue and about a quarter of its operating income burned. Glasses are growing; headsets are shrinking.

Last four quarters
2025 Q3 $470M Reported
2025 Q4 $955M Reported
2026 Q1 $402M Reported
2026 Q2 $431M Reported
AI glasses (Ray-Ban Meta, Oakley Meta)Quest headsetsContent, software and accessories
Sequential growth +5.0%/qtr decaying toward +3.0% 5% a quarter. AI glasses are growing and Quest is not; this is the net of the two.
Reality Labs

Latest: $2.02B (2031Q2E)

Period Value
2025Q1 $412M
2025Q2 $370M
2025Q3 $470M
2025Q4 $955M
2026Q1 $402M
2026Q2 $431M
2026Q3E $471M
2026Q4E $513M
2027Q1E $558M
2027Q2E $606M
2027Q3E $658M
2027Q4E $713M
2028Q1E $771M
2028Q2E $834M
2028Q3E $901M
2028Q4E $972M
2029Q1E $1.05B
2029Q2E $1.13B
2029Q3E $1.22B
2029Q4E $1.31B
2030Q1E $1.41B
2030Q2E $1.52B
2030Q3E $1.63B
2030Q4E $1.75B
2031Q1E $1.88B
2031Q2E $2.02B

Assumptions & reasoning

  • Carried as a growth rate rather than as units x price because Meta has never disclosed headset or glasses unit sales. A units model here would be two invented numbers multiplied together to reproduce a disclosed one.
  • The line is heavily seasonal - Q4 2025 was $955M against $470M the quarter before - and a smooth quarterly growth rate deliberately does not reproduce that. Read the annual totals, not the individual quarters.
  • The margin of -970% is not a typo: it is a $4.18B EBITDA loss on $431M of revenue, which is what the reported $4.62B operating loss looks like once an assumed share of depreciation is added back. Expressing it any other way would quietly delete $15B a year of real spending from the free cash flow.
  • It glides toward -250%, so the loss stays roughly flat in dollars as revenue grows rather than shrinking - which is what management guided to when it said Reality Labs operating losses would remain similar to 2025 levels.
  • This is the cleanest single lever in the model: a reader who believes Meta caps the burn can drag the terminal margin and watch what closing the loss is worth, without touching a single advertising assumption.
META model map

Explore another vertical