Axon Stock Breakdown: Monopoly Compounder or Overhyped Stock?

Get smarter on investing, business, and personal finance in 5 minutes.

Stock Breakdown

This newsletter is adapted from a recent video Drew Cohen did on Axon.

It is rare to find a business that can innovate and create its own category.

It is even rarer to find one that does it multiple times.

Axon created the first commercially viable taser product and essentially has a monopoly in that niche.

But instead of resting on their laurels, they kept looking for more problems police officers had and eventually introduced the body cam, creating an entirely new category.

When they realized police officers needed a place to store all of this video, they created a software platform called Evidence.com, which became a gold standard, using cloud technology well before that was mainstream.

Since then, they have added AI to help draft police reports, drone and counter-drone technology, and real-time command center capabilities.

Few companies have ever penetrated a single vertical as well as Axon has, integrating across hardware and software much like Apple does, which makes it a sticky product to rip out.

They are also a rare company that has re-accelerated growth as they have gotten bigger: in 21 of the past 23 quarters, they grew over 30%.

Yet the stock has been down over 50% from its peak.

Is that simply a stock's valuation running ahead of the business, or are investors fearing competition?

Motorola has a dominant position in police radio and is leveraging that to build its own ecosystem, much like Axon's, and recently won a notable contract in Louisiana.

What does that mean for future competition, and why is Axon's free cash flow conversion so weak and its stock-based comp so high?

We will cover all of this and more in this week’s Five Minute Money!

Business History.

The taser was created in the mid-1970s by a NASA scientist named Jack Cover, who thought electricity could be used to subdue someone after reading about a man who got stuck on an electric fence for hours.

The product was never commercially successful and his business plan had a lot of issues; the lesson is that even a good idea does not automatically become a good business.

Axon’s Founder, Rick Smith, was in business school looking for a potential business plan when he came across the taser and was surprised it had not worked commercially.

A high school classmate of his had been shot and killed in a road rage incident, and his mother had wanted to buy a gun because she did not feel safe at home.

It seemed odd to him that there was such a need for guns, so he looked into the taser as a better solution.

When Smith talked to Jack Cover, he found a lot of problems with the product.

So instead, they partnered to redesign and improve it.

He was fortunate that litigation with a competing product maker initially barred him from selling to law enforcement, which turned out to be a saving grace because the early product simply did not work well.

In one international demo, he told someone to run at him and try to incapacitate him, shot the taser, and it did not work: he ended up in a headlock.

The taser is a product you cannot bring to market as a minimum viable product; it has to work close to perfectly from the start, because you need to convince people it is worth using.

The Problem the Taser Solved.

The problem the taser was solving: a police officer facing someone resisting arrest, maybe armed with a knife, had bad options.

They could shoot the person, which is not optimal, or use a baton to beat them into submission.

The taser let an officer incapacitate someone from a distance without the long-term damage of a baton or the lethality of a gun.

There were later lawsuits over cases involving preexisting heart conditions, but by and large it was a far better solution for keeping people from getting seriously hurt.

That was the idea behind the taser, and that is where the business started.

The taser did not get much traction initially, and it took 9/11 to change that: airlines wanted security solutions and did not want pilots carrying guns in pressurized cabins, so the taser became an easy sell.

Publicity grew, and law enforcement interest followed.

Axon IPO'd in 2001, and from 2001 to 2004 the stock rose more than 50 times, before going dead money for 11 years.

That is likely why Rick Smith sold a lot of his stock as the price rose; he still owns around 4% of the company today.

Living through a stock rising 50 times, then dropping 90% and taking over a decade to recover, changes how you think about your holdings.

Building Trust.

Once law enforcement agencies started using tasers, police were regularly sued, with critics calling it unusual punishment bordering on torture.

Axon chose to defend the police in these trials even though their liability was only product-based, so they were not financially on the hook, and by winning these cases they helped the taser become mainstream.

The argument was that a taser used on a resisting assailant was actually in that assailant's best interest, the lesser of two evils compared to bruises or gunshot wounds.

Over time, most agencies came to see the taser as a valuable, non-lethal alternative to the gun.

Rick Smith later wrote a book called The End of Killing, arguing tasers could someday replace guns in warfare itself, mission-driven thinking that is also commercially aligned with Axon's interests.

AXON Body Cam.

A problem with these lawsuits was that there was often no footage of what actually happened between an officer and a civilian.

Axon's first fix was a camera mounted on the taser itself, but that only captured footage once the taser was already drawn, missing all the context before.

Their second attempt put a camera near the officer's eye, Robocop-style, but that freaked people out and was not mobile.

Their third attempt, the body cam worn on the officer's body, finally worked: it captured everything the officer saw and gave them strong footage for court.

The sentiment around police wearing cameras was not great as police disliked wearing cameras, seeing it as too “big brother.”

That all changed after Ferguson in 2014, when a police officer allegedly shot and killed an unarmed civilian and the full truth of what happened was never fully known.

Officers suddenly feared being blamed for things they did not do, and departments began treating a lack of video as a liability.

That shift meant police departments wanted every officer recording at all times, both to corroborate their account and to help prevent civil unrest.

By 2019, 350,000 of an estimated 600,000 police officers had body cams, and that penetration has only grown since.

The Network Effect of Evidence(.)com

All of that video needed somewhere to go, which is how Evidence.com became Axon's cloud platform.

What sets it apart is a network effect with prosecutors: body cam video from a crime scene must follow a specific chain of custody, and if evidence is omitted, a trial can be dismissed entirely.

With footage from many officers on one unified platform, prosecutors can track everything and ensure nothing is lost.

Because police need prosecutors on the platform and prosecutors need police on it, Evidence.com has become the gold standard for evidence collection in the United States and one of Axon's biggest advantages.

Expanding the Platform.

Axon kept adding devices to the platform: fleet cameras in patrol cars with license plate recognition that can flag a stolen vehicle automatically.

Through the acquisition of Fusus, they moved into the real-time command center, traditionally Motorola's territory, aggregating live officer locations, video feeds, and drone data to coordinate response, which connects to Axon 911, their emergency dispatch and call-routing service.

They’ve also added drones to their ecosystem, and with drones, it gives police departments two capabilities.

The first is surveillance: in one case, an officer was shot, and before other officers rushed in, a drone surveyed the area and fed back information to direct them safely.

The second, through the acquisition of Dedrone, is counter-drone defense, using radio frequency jammers and launchable drones to kinetically take down hostile drones.

This is a growing need given how easy drones are to obtain and how they can be misused, including a case where someone placed a bomb near a drone close to a stadium.

AI and Taser 10.

AI is the newest layer.

The biggest feature so far is Draft One, which lets an officer use AI to generate a first draft of a police report from transcribed body cam footage, freeing officers for more time in the field.

More AI is coming to the command center and call routing.

Meanwhile, the taser itself keeps improving: the original fired only 2 shots, requiring both prongs to hit an assailant, so missing the first shot meant being out of luck.

Later versions added more shots, and the newest, the Taser 10, fires 10, so missing several still leaves room to hit the target.

Range has also grown, from close range to roughly 40 feet or more, inching the taser closer to a gun's capability without the lethality, in service of Axon's stated mission of ending killing.

Business Overview.

The business runs through two segments: connected devices and software & services.

Connected devices includes tasers, body cams, fleet cameras, standup cameras, and drones, all manufactured in-house.

This segment is 56% of revenue, $1.8 billion in the last 12 months, growing 32 y/y and accelerating to 34% last quarter, though revenue is naturally lumpy quarter to quarter because of contract recognition timing.

Connected devices carries about 48% gross margins, a reasonable but unremarkable hardware margin.

Software and services makes up 44% of revenue at $1.4 billion in the last 12 months, also grew 32% y/y and accelerated to 36% last quarter, running at a much higher margin, around the mid-70%.

The two segments reinforce each other: buying the body cam means also buying video storage, AI transcription tools, and products like Draft One.

From Capex to Budget Line Item.

One of Axon's smartest moves was shifting from a capital expenditure to an operating expenditure line item in law enforcement budgets.

Government agencies rarely have surplus cash for a one-off purchase like new tasers for an entire department; historically, agencies waited years between upgrades simply because the money was not budgeted.

Axon's solution was to bundle everything, tasers, warranties, ammunition, training, and free upgrades, into a 7-year service contract billed at a lower amount per year rather than the full cost up front, making it a recurring budget line that renews easily.

Combined, the two segments generate $3.2 billion in revenue, growing 34% overall.

FCF Conversion.

The business carries a modest amount of debt, about $1.8 billion as of the last filing, rising to $2.8 billion after a new billion-dollar convertible note, against roughly $600 million in cash, potentially $1.6 billion including the new raise.

Free cash flow has long been a sticking point: on $3.2 billion in revenue, operating cash flow is only $265 million, which looks worse once stock-based comp of about $630 million is considered, though there is an important asterisk on that figure.

A large portion of Axon's stock-based comp, extending down to regular employees, is performance-based, requiring both a stock price target and a revenue or adjusted EBITDA target to be paid out, unlike ordinary restricted stock units that vest regardless of performance.

That alignment is appealing in one sense, everyone is incentivized toward a higher stock price and stronger results, but it still represents real dilution.

Looking only at capex of $135 million, free cash flow comes to about $130 million; backing out some portion of the stock-based comp would make that figure roughly neutral to negative.

Weak free cash flow stems from two main factors.

First, Axon effectively finances its own sales: the 7-year contract structure means cash goes out up front when a department is equipped and is recouped slowly over the contract's life, which shows up more the faster the company grows.

Second, Axon manufactures its own hardware in owned facilities, which is where most of the capex goes.

The result is negative operating cash flow, the opposite of a business that can self-fund its own growth, which is not disqualifying as long as growth and returns remain strong, but is a less attractive model than one with positive working capital.

Stock-based comp runs high because Rick Smith decided early on that competing for strong software engineers against San Francisco required paying up, and that approach has persisted: last year's stock-based comp was almost 20% of revenue.

It is a high number in absolute terms, but it is at least tied to real performance rather than being unconditional.

Axon's Moats.

Moving to Axon's moats, the strongest is the integration between hardware and software.

Once a department's hardware is uploaded to the software, ripping it out means replacing all the hardware too.

Cheaper third-party body cams exist, but pairing them with separate software creates friction and more risk of losing video, much like how photos sync automatically to the cloud on an iPhone.

Axon also covers far more of the stack than any rival; outside of Motorola, competitors are mostly point solutions for one device or feature, while Axon can bundle tasers, body cams, evidence management, dispatch, the command center, and report drafting together, usually cheaper than integrating separate vendors even though Axon itself still carries a premium price.

Evidence(.)com carries its own network effect: prosecutors need to be on the same platform as police because chain-of-custody requirements are strict, and a break in that chain can cause a mistrial, making departments and prosecutors reluctant to switch once they are using the gold standard.

Tasers face essentially no real competition, Axon's lead in shot count, range, reliability, and lightness is substantial, while body cams themselves are a more commoditized technology; the real differentiator is that Axon's cameras sync natively to Evidence.com.

Trust is another layer of the moat: departments need to know a body cam or taser will work reliably, since a malfunction could let a defendant claim tampering, and Axon's long history of defending police in court is hard for a newer competitor to match.

Long-term contracts, typically 3, 5, or 7 years, covering most of a department's technology, add further stickiness, since mission-critical equipment is a hard sell to rip out once officers are trained on it.

The one risk is that public agencies occasionally face political pressure to switch to a lower-cost bidder, a pressure more rational private enterprises rarely face, though this has not happened often in practice.

Competition.

Many competitors are more point solutions competition.

Competing against the TASER is the BolaWrap, launched by Rick Smith's brother after a falling out, which uses a rope rather than electrified prongs, performs poorly against anything in its path, and critically does not actually incapacitate a person the way a taser does.

Getac competes in Evidence(.)com and body cams.

Flock Safety has drawn recent criticism for license-plate cameras many view as a privacy invasion.

Axon has a similar product, but Flock has absorbed more of the backlash, arguably sparing Axon some reputational risk; Axon's response has been to make its own cameras more discreet.

Tyler Technology competes on the software side but runs on older, non-integrated technology, leaving Axon a real edge there.

The most formidable competitor by far is Motorola, which dominates emergency radio and has leveraged that into the real-time command center and 911 dispatch.

Axon is trying to take share in those areas while Motorola pushes the opposite direction, building its own body cam and an Evidence.com equivalent, essentially mirroring Axon in everything except the taser, which it has not attempted to copy.

The two companies are converging from opposite starting points, Axon moving from police gear into the back office, Motorola moving from infrastructure toward the front line.

Motorola has not meaningfully weighed on Axon's growth so far but given that departments remain price-conscious and Motorola appears more willing to compete on price, it bears watching.

Motorola's clearest recent win was a Louisiana State contract to unify multiple departments onto one platform, reportedly not an open bid and won partly by coming down considerably on price.

Even one aggressive competitor undercutting prices by 5 to 10% can weigh on margins over time without threatening the business outright.

If anything eventually goes wrong with Axon's model, Motorola competition is the most likely candidate, though existing customers switching to Motorola remains rare.

Departments generally like Axon, with the main criticisms being price and discomfort with being locked into a single platform; even so, it meets their needs well, and mission-critical systems are not things agencies rip out casually.

Motorola is trusted as a long-time radio vendor, but that does not automatically extend to trusting it with video evidence.

The market is large enough for more than one player: Axon holds an 80% share in body cams and dominates tasers outright, while Motorola dominates radio and the real-time command center.

Valuation.

Turning to valuation: Axon is currently valued around $34 billion at $415 per share, roughly 11x sales.

Assuming a 25% mature margin, a middle-of-the-road estimate between a conservative 20% and an aggressive 30%, that is about $640 million in NOPAT, putting the stock at 52x trailing earnings.

Whether that multiple is justified depends entirely on future growth.

There are three major growth opportunities.

Growth Opportunities.

1.Sell More to Existing Customers

About 80% already use both hardware and software, but only 40% have attached premium products, leaving room to upsell items like OneDraft, an AI product that drafts police reports for $100 per officer per month.

Police cannot simply use a generic AI tool for this; it requires governance and safeguards against hallucination that Axon provides.

That efficiency can translate into real savings, less overtime or fewer officers needed for paperwork, which matters given a secular decline in people wanting to join police departments.

2.International Expansion

The second is international expansion, potentially an even larger market than the United States, though a different one.

Many countries, especially in Europe, have far less gun culture and stricter gun laws, so officers are less likely to carry firearms at all, which cuts both ways: less fear of being shot reduces urgency for a taser, but strict limits on carrying guns make the taser a natural substitute for a baton.

Sales cycles restart from scratch in each new country, but Axon has found real traction there.

3.Enterprise

What once seemed far-fetched, retail employees wearing body cams, has become a real opportunity: cameras reduce liability when an employee reacts to an aggressive customer, and studies show people behave less aggressively when filmed, which also helps curb theft.

Footage can feed into Evidence(.)com just as police footage does.

This segment looks more price-competitive than law enforcement, since retailers lack the same chain-of-custody requirements that bind police departments to Axon, but it still represents real, growing demand.

Axon's own TAM figures, taken with the usual grain of salt, put international opportunity at $76 billion, enterprise at $48 billion, US state and local government at $19 billion, and US federal government at $15 billion, a combined $160 billion against $3.2 billion in current revenue.

The real addressable market is impossible to pin down precisely, but Axon keeps finding new categories, drones being the latest, suggesting more are likely ahead.

Three Growth Scenarios to 2028.

Axon has guided to $6 billion in 2028 revenue.

Applying the same 25% mature margin produces $1.2 billion in NOPAT, and three growth scenarios tell different stories.

At 10% growth exiting 2028, a fair multiple might be around 23x, implying roughly $28 billion in value, below today's $34 billion market cap.

At 20% growth, a 30x multiple implies about $36 billion, only modest upside.

At a sustained 30% growth rate, a 40x multiple implies roughly $48 billion, about 60% upside; these multiples effectively prepay 3 years of growth down to a historical market multiple of roughly 17x.

This is meant as a simple, quick framework rather than a precise valuation model.

Ultimately, investors have to make their own judgment and whether the potential return is worth it.

For more on Axon, check out this video below.

YouTube FAQ

Nothing in this newsletter is investment advice nor should be construed as such. Contributors to the newsletter may own securities discussed. Furthermore, accounts contributors advise on may also have positions in companies discussed. Please see our full disclaimers here.