META
Meta Platforms, Inc.Evidence as of 2026-09-01The desk's Snapshot
3 of 15 open to everyone · members see allRead the full desk report on META
Seven analysts, the debate, the risk review, every claim cited. And the same for every name you hold.
7-day free trial. AI-written · every claim cites a source · Insight, not advice.
Overview · Meta Platforms, Inc.
Meta Platforms, Inc. engages in the development of products that enable people to connect and share with friends and family through mobile devices, personal computers, virtual reality headsets, and wearables worldwide. It operates in two segments, Family of Apps and Reality Labs. The Family of Apps segment offers Facebook, which enables people to share, discuss, discover, and connect with interests; Instagram, a comm…
Management team
- Ms. Janelle Gale · Head of PeopleFind on LinkedIn
- Mr. Henry T. A. Moniz · Chief Compliance OfficerFind on LinkedIn
- Ms. Jennifer G. Newstead J.D. · Chief Legal OfficerFind on LinkedIn
- Mr. Alexander P. Schultz · Chief Marketing Officer and VP of Product, Growth, Analytics & InternationalizationFind on LinkedIn
Start your 7-day free trial to see the full management team.
Links open LinkedIn searches, not verified profiles. Team data from our market-data vendor's company profile.
Moneyta sentiment
Where the published evidence leans after the desk debated it — not a rating or a recommendation.
−0.7 on a −2 to +2 scale.
What builds the score
Solid bars are analyst rubric scores; faded bars are computed directly from data. Claims dropped in debate count for nothing; weakened claims count at half weight.
Editor's note
Written after the debate settled — the rest of the page is the evidence behind it.
Revenue and operating income rose across the reported sequence of quarters, with revenue at $ 56,311,000,000 in Q1 2026 (fiscal quarter ended 2026-03-31) versus $ 42,314,000,000 in Q1 2025 (fiscal quarter ended 2025-03-31), and operating income at $ 22,872,000,000 in Q1 2026 versus $ 17,555,000,000 in Q1 2025. Net income and diluted EPS likewise show a general increase year‑over‑year, with net income of $ 26,773,000,000 and diluted EPS of $ 10.44 in Q1 2026 compared with $ 16,644,000,000 and $ 6.43 in Q1 2025.
Costs rose in absolute terms: cost of revenue was $ 10,218,000,000 and research & development was $ 17,699,000,000 in Q1 2026. The balance sheet shows higher long‑term debt at $ 58,748,000,000 as of 2026-03-31 and lower cash and equivalents at $ 23,426,000,000 as of 2026-03-31 versus $ 35,873,000,000 as of FY 2025 (fiscal quarter ended 2025-12-31). Market signals are mixed: price momentum was negative over 6‑ and 12‑month windows, volatility is elevated (30‑day +41.1%, 90‑day +43.8%), beta versus SPY is 1.41, and the price was below both the 50‑day and 200‑day simple moving averages as of 2026-08-31.
How this note was made
every stage ran before the note was writtenAnalyst desk
Mercer, Oakes, Nash, Ellis, Yates, Talbot and Archer. The desk: named AI agents, not people. Each reads one slice of the evidence and nothing else — no outside knowledge, no browsing — so every finding traces to a source you can open.
Reads the XBRL figures companies file with the SEC — revenue, margins, income, debt and share count, quarter by quarter — and reports which way the trend is running.
Revenue increased across the reported quarters: revenue for fiscal Q1 2026 (2026-01-01 to 2026-03-31) was $56,311,000,000, compared with $51,242,000,000 in fiscal Q3 2025 (2025-07-01 to 2025-09-30), $47,516,000,000 in fiscal Q2 2025 (2025-04-01 to 2025-06-30), and $42,314,000,000 in fiscal Q1 2025 (2025-01-01 to 2025-03-31).
XBRL companyfacts · 0001628280-26-028526Operating income rose over the same sequence of quarters: $22,872,000,000 in fiscal Q1 2026; $20,535,000,000 in fiscal Q3 2025; $20,441,000,000 in fiscal Q2 2025; and $17,555,000,000 in fiscal Q1 2025.
XBRL companyfacts · 0001628280-26-028526Reads the filings themselves, above all the year-over-year diff of Item 1A risk factors: which risks a company added, dropped or quietly reworded since its last annual report.
Which filings the desk reads
The desk reads the annual 10-K in full — its risk factors, and how they changed since last year. Quarterly 10-Qs and event filings (8-Ks, insider Form 4s) are listed for context but not read line by line: the 10-K is where the material risk disclosures live. A brand-new company, or one we have only just begun tracking, may have no annual report on file yet — its risk analysis fills in once that lands.
The annual report filed 29 January 2026 adds risk language that the company has made and is continuing to make significant investments in AI and Reality Labs and that some of these investments, "particularly our significant investments in Reality Labs, have generated only limited revenue".
Item 1A risk-factor diff · 0001628280-26-003942 vs 0001326801-25-000017The 29 January 2026 filing includes newly emphasized risk text that the company faces "significant competition from other companies that are developing their own AI features and technologies," and that such competition and third-party IP could "prevent, limit, or interfere with our ability to make, use, or sell our own AI features."
Item 1A risk-factor diff · 0001628280-26-003942 vs 0001326801-25-000017Reads the signal panel above — momentum, volatility, drawdown, relative strength and beta — and ranks each against the whole research universe rather than judging it in isolation.
As of 2026-08-31, 6-month price momentum was -12.4%, placing the security at the 17th percentile of the 547-stock research universe.
Moneyta signal set · 2026-08-31weakened in debateAs of 2026-08-31, 12-month (12_1) momentum was -19.7%, also at the 17th percentile of the 547-stock research universe.
Moneyta signal set · 2026-08-31weakened in debateReads which funds hold the name and at what weight, plus insider Form 4 filings, to show the exposure you may already carry through index funds.
As of 2026-08-23, the iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) held META at 3.05% weight of the fund.
ETF constituents · market dataThe aggregated 13F-reported institutional holdings value was $995.08B as of the reported quarter ended 2026-03-31 (13F filings carry a 45-day reporting lag).
13F holdings · 5029 filers · as of 2026-03-31Reads recent headlines that are genuinely about this company, ignoring rating chatter and market-wide stories. Findings argue in the debate but never move the sentiment score.
States and Meta agreed to a $17 billion settlement over claims that Facebook and Instagram kept children hooked, and the agreement includes Meta avoiding CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifying at trial.
News · finance.yahoo.com · 2026-08-31Multiple articles frame Meta's teen-safety moves as a potential competitive advantage, with at least one headline stating "Meta just turned teen safety into a competitive advantage."
News · finance.yahoo.com · 2026-08-31Reads parsed Forms 3/4/5 — who bought or sold, at what size, and whether a 10b5-1 plan was involved. Flags clustered open-market officer buying; treats plan sales as routine and never counts a fund or 10%-holder as an officer.
Curtis J. Mahoney (Chief Legal Officer) sold 1,559 shares for a reported value of "$870k" on 2026-08-18, and the filing states the transaction was executed under a 10b5-1 plan.
Form 4 · Mahoney Curtis J. (Chief Legal Officer) · $870k sold · 2026-08-18Andrew Bosworth (Chief Technology Officer) sold 7,848 shares for a reported value of "$4.4M" on 2026-08-18, and the filing states the transaction was executed under a 10b5-1 plan.
Form 4 · Bosworth Andrew (Chief Technology Officer) · $4.4M sold · 2026-08-18Reads the implied-expectations math built from the company's own filings (the growth rate today's price would justify, and the multiples beside it) and argues whether the market's bar looks high or low for this business. Never turns the math into a target.
The market price used in this evidence is 572.34 (price date 2026-08-31).
Valuation inputs · SEC XBRL + stored EOD closeTrailing twelve‑month earnings per share (EPS ttm) is 25.06.
Valuation inputs · SEC XBRL + stored EOD closeDebate and risk review
A bull and a bear contest the claims and the chair rules on each; the risk review stress-tests what survived.
A bull and a bear argue the analysts' claims across two rounds, then a chair rules on each one. Only what survives feeds the score — the argument is shown, not hidden, so you can judge the reasoning yourself.
Several company-reported fundamentals show sequential revenue, operating income, and EPS improvements across the cited quarters, and those items come from the company filings (10-Q/10-K) so the evidence strength is strong for historical performance. Trailing P/E and EPS ttm data indicate valuation metrics that, on their face, are not extreme relative to growth shown (evidence strength: derived from market pricing and trailing earnings, moderate-to-strong). Positive third‑party coverage items (reported partnership coverage and data‑center automation testing) provide corroborating market-context signals that could support a favorable read; those news items are medium-strength evidence (press reports). I contest the bear case points that rely on market-price momentum, short-term volatility, and headline legal/regulatory risks as primary counterarguments, because momentum and volatility are market-state indicators (strong evidence for price behavior but not necessarily company intrinsic value) and the filings' added risk language is typical disclosure practice (strong in text but lower in implying immediate operational impairment). Overall, the jointly supporting claims show solid recent earnings and revenue growth with a moderate trailing valuation, while the weaker bear points are largely market-state or disclosure-focused rather than direct contradictions of the reported operating results.
Chair's verdict, claim by claim
Fragility · computed, not argued
balanced0.33
38 surviving claims rest on 18 distinct sources; the heaviest analyst carries 18% of them, and 96% of what the desk raised survived the debate.
The surviving set rests on a moderate breadth of sources but a small number of analysts contribute a meaningful share of claims, and nearly all proposed points survived internal debate. This pattern means the read is informative but somewhat brittle: it benefits from cross-source corroboration yet could be sensitive to a few analysts' interpretations or to one new, authoritative filing that contradicts key items.
Peer context · computed, not argued
12-1 momentum ranks 4th of 5 in Internet Content & Information (as of 2026-08-31).
90-day volatility ranks 3rd of 5 in Internet Content & Information (as of 2026-08-31).
dividend yield ranks 1st of 5 in Internet Content & Information (as of 2026-08-31).
Disconfirming evidence · base rates · falsifiers
Context
Outside consensus, and where this name already sits in your own portfolio.
Third-party consensus shown for context. It never enters Moneyta sentiment — when the two diverge, the debate above is where the why lives.
What this was built from
Every figure on this page traces to one of these. The desk reads only what is listed here — no outside knowledge, no browsing — and each card shows who read it and what it contributed to the score.
11 filings· 2 cited
SEC XBRL filings
Quarterly figures as filed with the SEC, read straight from EDGAR's structured data — not retyped or estimated.
Read by Mercer+0.3 to the score
12 documents· 1 cited
SEC filing documents
The filings themselves, including the year-over-year comparison of Item 1A risk factors.
Read by Oakes−0.8 to the score
1 signal set
Moneyta signal set
Computed from our own end-of-day price history and ranked against the whole research universe. No AI involved.
Read by Nash−0.6 to the score
3 holdings records· 2 cited
Fund holdings
Which funds hold this name and at what weight, plus insider Form 4 filings.
Read by Ellis−0.4 to the score
7 headlines· 2 cited
News coverage
Recent headlines about this company, rating chatter excluded and nothing published after the report date.
Read by Yatesnothing survived
8 filings· 2 cited
Insider filings
Parsed Forms 3/4/5 from EDGAR: named insiders, share counts, prices, and 10b5-1 plan state — stated and inferred flags kept apart.
Read by Talbot−0.6 to the score
1 computation
Valuation inputs
TTM cash-flow figures from the company's own XBRL filings, priced with the stored closing price. Implied growth and multiples only; no fair-value dollar figure reaches the desk, by design.
Read by Archercontext only
1 record· 0 cited
Company profile
Sector, industry and company details.
1 record· 0 cited
Analyst consensus
Third-party consensus, shown for context only — it never enters Moneyta sentiment.
Read means we pulled and handed it to an analyst; cited means a claim on this page points at it. Reading twelve quarters to state one trend is normal — the gap is shown rather than hidden.
Written by AI, checked against sources
The analysts, the bull–bear debate and the editor's note are AI agents reading only the evidence listed on this page. They can misread a filing or a headline, which is why every claim cites a source you can open and check yourself. The sentiment score is arithmetic over the claims that survived the debate, not a language model's opinion.
Educational analysis of published data. Moneyta does not give investment advice or make recommendations. Past patterns do not indicate future results.
The full terminal on META Gold
Who holds it, who's buying, what the Street thinks: live behind the lock, updated as filings land.
Institutional holders
Net institutional flow, Q/Q
Largest holder position
Insider buys, 90 days
Clustered insider value
Street target range
The real figures are for members. Educational analysis, not advice.
Get this for the names you actually hold
Every name in your portfolio, researched the same way, plus the one thing no sample can show: how each one sits inside what you already own.
Educational analysis of published data. Moneyta does not give investment advice or make recommendations.