Rivian's losses compared to Lucid's

[TahoeMichael]

I was browsing the news this morning, and saw all the headlines about Rivian's financial performance and their guidance for this year. I've seen a lot of criticism of Lucid's burn rate (here and elsewhere), and I was curious how that compares to Rivian. Near as I can tell, Rivian's first deliveries of the R1T were in Oct '21, roughly the same time that Lucid began delivering the Air to customers.

According to Google Finance, the annual losses of the companies are:

	Lucid	Rivian
2021	$2.58B	$4.69B
2022	$1.3B	$6.75B
2023	$2.83B	$5.43B
2024	$2.71B	$4.75B
Q1-3 2025	$1.88B	$2.83B

I follow Lucid more closely than Rivian, and I'm surprised that Rivian's burn rate has been so much higher than Lucid's. Of course, Rivian is also selling more vehicles, and is also roughly a year ahead of Lucid in entering the mid-market. Nonetheless, it's an interesting comparison about the frugality (if you can call it that) of Lucid's spending compared to a similar EV startup.

Note that I'm not an investor in either company, and this isn't anything I'd call a real financial analysis. I'm well aware of the complexities of financial strategies and SEC reporting, and I haven't tried to dig into the numbers and understand how much of the difference is "real" and how much is a product of financial engineering.

 

[Northpointe]

I'm not an investor in either company. It would be interesting to normalize the losses on a per vehicle basis as each company is losing money on every unit they sell. Rivian's losses may be more of a function of their higher volume and being a little in front on the R&D side of things. Regardless, the financial results or either company are not sustainable. They will have to find a way to becoming volume manufacturers at profitable levels to survive.

 

[TahoeMichael]

I'm not an investor in either company. It would be interesting to normalize the losses on a per vehicle basis as each company is losing money on every unit they sell. Rivian's losses may be more of a function of their higher volume and being a little in front on the R&D side of things. Regardless, the financial results or either company are not sustainable. They will have to find a way to becoming volume manufacturers at profitable levels to survive.

I think both companies have been very clear that higher volume sales from being in the mid-market is their path towards generating cash instead of burning it. Seeing whether that plays out well will require patience. I believe Rivian is still projecting losses for '26, and it will be '27 before we'll be able to see if the strategy is successful. Lucid is presumably a year behind that, with '28 being a key year to look at.

 

[Adnillien]

I was browsing the news this morning, and saw all the headlines about Rivian's financial performance and their guidance for this year. I've seen a lot of criticism of Lucid's burn rate (here and elsewhere), and I was curious how that compares to Rivian. Near as I can tell, Rivian's first deliveries of the R1T were in Oct '21, roughly the same time that Lucid began delivering the Air to customers.

According to Google Finance, the annual losses of the companies are:

	Lucid	Rivian
2021	$2.58B	$4.69B
2022	$1.3B	$6.75B
2023	$2.83B	$5.43B
2024	$2.71B	$4.75B
Q1-3 2025	$1.88B	$2.83B

I follow Lucid more closely than Rivian, and I'm surprised that Rivian's burn rate has been so much higher than Lucid's. Of course, Rivian is also selling more vehicles, and is also roughly a year ahead of Lucid in entering the mid-market. Nonetheless, it's an interesting comparison about the frugality (if you can call it that) of Lucid's spending compared to a similar EV startup.

Note that I'm not an investor in either company, and this isn't anything I'd call a real financial analysis. I'm well aware of the complexities of financial strategies and SEC reporting, and I haven't tried to dig into the numbers and understand how much of the difference is "real" and how much is a product of financial engineering.

These numbers are not the cash burn rate. They include depreciation and other items that do not require cash that lead to an overall loss. You will need to look at the statement of cash flows to see the real cash burn rate.

 

[BS8899]

I was browsing the news this morning, and saw all the headlines about Rivian's financial performance and their guidance for this year. I've seen a lot of criticism of Lucid's burn rate (here and elsewhere), and I was curious how that compares to Rivian. Near as I can tell, Rivian's first deliveries of the R1T were in Oct '21, roughly the same time that Lucid began delivering the Air to customers.

According to Google Finance, the annual losses of the companies are:

	Lucid	Rivian
2021	$2.58B	$4.69B
2022	$1.3B	$6.75B
2023	$2.83B	$5.43B
2024	$2.71B	$4.75B
Q1-3 2025	$1.88B	$2.83B

I follow Lucid more closely than Rivian, and I'm surprised that Rivian's burn rate has been so much higher than Lucid's. Of course, Rivian is also selling more vehicles, and is also roughly a year ahead of Lucid in entering the mid-market. Nonetheless, it's an interesting comparison about the frugality (if you can call it that) of Lucid's spending compared to a similar EV startup.

Note that I'm not an investor in either company, and this isn't anything I'd call a real financial analysis. I'm well aware of the complexities of financial strategies and SEC reporting, and I haven't tried to dig into the numbers and understand how much of the difference is "real" and how much is a product of financial engineering.

Interesting comparison. Keep in mind that Rivian is not just R1T/R1S/R2, they also have a delivery truck business with Amazon and investments from VW. Lucid is basically has PIF as its Sugar-Daddy.

Both companies are aiming for the mid-size to boost volume to get to volume and profitability. As most observer agree, Rivian is probably at least 1 year ahead of Lucid. Rivian's 2025 volume is about 2.5X that of Lucid's. If the R2 hits the mark, they will open up a larger lead.

I have a 2022 Lucid Air-GT and a 2023 R1S Quad/Adventure. In terms of power train, Lucid's is more refined. Lucid's cabin is nicer. In terms of efficiency, Lucid is better, but significantly short of its claims. The R1S is not as efficient as the Air-GT, but it delivers what Rivian claims. But here, you are comparing apples and oranges, a sedan vs a SUV.

When I purchased these two vehicles, the cost (including tax, licensing, etc.) of the Lucid was almost 2X that of the Rivian. Now, 3+/2+ years later, with depreciation, my Rivian is worth more than my Lucid! But the insurance on the Lucid is still significantly high than the Rivian. Bottomline is, the Lucid is a more refine car. But it was plagued with SW problems and lagging features (e.g., DD-Pro, maps, recording cameras, FOB/locking/unlocking).

As both companies try to tackle the mid-market ($50,000 +/-), service network is key. Rivian is ahead of Lucid. Personally, I don't have problem with Lucid service per se. My main home is in AZ. The Scottsdale service center is about 5 miles away. Most of the time, I just drive to the Service center, talk to the advisors to get my problems addressed (except for SW and FOB/entry). Rivian's service network is more pervasive. Rivian also engages local 3rd party provider (e.g., tire rotation....in AZ, you can go to Discount Tires and get your Rivian tires rotated, no appointments necessary and is free). And yes, Rivian needs to continue to expand to serve a larger market. I am not sure how lucid is going to service they products if/as the mid-size ramps! If SW and service issues continue to haunt Lucid, it will not succeed no matter how refine the cars are.

 

[L-Dude]

Interesting comparison. Keep in mind that Rivian is not just R1T/R1S/R2, they also have a delivery truck business with Amazon and investments from VW. Lucid is basically has PIF as its Sugar-Daddy.

Both companies are aiming for the mid-size to boost volume to get to volume and profitability. As most observer agree, Rivian is probably at least 1 year ahead of Lucid. Rivian's 2025 volume is about 2.5X that of Lucid's. If the R2 hits the mark, they will open up a larger lead.

I have a 2022 Lucid Air-GT and a 2023 R1S Quad/Adventure. In terms of power train, Lucid's is more refined. Lucid's cabin is nicer. In terms of efficiency, Lucid is better, but significantly short of its claims. The R1S is not as efficient as the Air-GT, but it delivers what Rivian claims. But here, you are comparing apples and oranges, a sedan vs a SUV.

When I purchased these two vehicles, the cost (including tax, licensing, etc.) of the Lucid was almost 2X that of the Rivian. Now, 3+/2+ years later, with depreciation, my Rivian is worth more than my Lucid! But the insurance on the Lucid is still significantly high than the Rivian. Bottomline is, the Lucid is a more refine car. But it was plagued with SW problems and lagging features (e.g., DD-Pro, maps, recording cameras, FOB/locking/unlocking).

As both companies try to tackle the mid-market ($50,000 +/-), service network is key. Rivian is ahead of Lucid. Personally, I don't have problem with Lucid service per se. My main home is in AZ. The Scottsdale service center is about 5 miles away. Most of the time, I just drive to the Service center, talk to the advisors to get my problems addressed (except for SW and FOB/entry). Rivian's service network is more pervasive. Rivian also engages local 3rd party provider (e.g., tire rotation....in AZ, you can go to Discount Tires and get your Rivian tires rotated, no appointments necessary and is free). And yes, Rivian needs to continue to expand to serve a larger market. I am not sure how lucid is going to service they products if/as the mid-size ramps! If SW and service issues continue to haunt Lucid, it will not succeed no matter how refine the cars are.

Very cogent and balanced assessment, IMO. There are a lot of moving parts in the EV space right now, and it is extremely difficult to predict what headwinds/tailwinds will exist in the next few years.

 

[socktucker]

LCID is basically a penny stock now

 

[gaskiller]

Interesting comparison. Keep in mind that Rivian is not just R1T/R1S/R2, they also have a delivery truck business with Amazon and investments from VW. Lucid is basically has PIF as its Sugar-Daddy.

Both companies are aiming for the mid-size to boost volume to get to volume and profitability. As most observer agree, Rivian is probably at least 1 year ahead of Lucid. Rivian's 2025 volume is about 2.5X that of Lucid's. If the R2 hits the mark, they will open up a larger lead.

I have a 2022 Lucid Air-GT and a 2023 R1S Quad/Adventure. In terms of power train, Lucid's is more refined. Lucid's cabin is nicer. In terms of efficiency, Lucid is better, but significantly short of its claims. The R1S is not as efficient as the Air-GT, but it delivers what Rivian claims. But here, you are comparing apples and oranges, a sedan vs a SUV.

When I purchased these two vehicles, the cost (including tax, licensing, etc.) of the Lucid was almost 2X that of the Rivian. Now, 3+/2+ years later, with depreciation, my Rivian is worth more than my Lucid! But the insurance on the Lucid is still significantly high than the Rivian. Bottomline is, the Lucid is a more refine car. But it was plagued with SW problems and lagging features (e.g., DD-Pro, maps, recording cameras, FOB/locking/unlocking).

As both companies try to tackle the mid-market ($50,000 +/-), service network is key. Rivian is ahead of Lucid. Personally, I don't have problem with Lucid service per se. My main home is in AZ. The Scottsdale service center is about 5 miles away. Most of the time, I just drive to the Service center, talk to the advisors to get my problems addressed (except for SW and FOB/entry). Rivian's service network is more pervasive. Rivian also engages local 3rd party provider (e.g., tire rotation....in AZ, you can go to Discount Tires and get your Rivian tires rotated, no appointments necessary and is free). And yes, Rivian needs to continue to expand to serve a larger market. I am not sure how lucid is going to service they products if/as the mid-size ramps! If SW and service issues continue to haunt Lucid, it will not succeed no matter how refine the cars are.

Problem with Rivian is the lazy midsize design- very inefficient, mini-me of the R1S. Looks like they hardly put any effort into the exterior design. Interior of Rivian R1S is too plasticky and the ride is very bad compared to the Gravity. Only upside is off-roading, but who does that?

When I drove the Rivian, I felt like i was riding a horse. But probably that is good if you off-road.

Lucid vehicles are definetly more luxurious and drive much better. Depends of what you want out of the vehicle.

 

[gaskiller]

I was browsing the news this morning, and saw all the headlines about Rivian's financial performance and their guidance for this year. I've seen a lot of criticism of Lucid's burn rate (here and elsewhere), and I was curious how that compares to Rivian. Near as I can tell, Rivian's first deliveries of the R1T were in Oct '21, roughly the same time that Lucid began delivering the Air to customers.

According to Google Finance, the annual losses of the companies are:

	Lucid	Rivian
2021	$2.58B	$4.69B
2022	$1.3B	$6.75B
2023	$2.83B	$5.43B
2024	$2.71B	$4.75B
Q1-3 2025	$1.88B	$2.83B

I follow Lucid more closely than Rivian, and I'm surprised that Rivian's burn rate has been so much higher than Lucid's. Of course, Rivian is also selling more vehicles, and is also roughly a year ahead of Lucid in entering the mid-market. Nonetheless, it's an interesting comparison about the frugality (if you can call it that) of Lucid's spending compared to a similar EV startup.

Note that I'm not an investor in either company, and this isn't anything I'd call a real financial analysis. I'm well aware of the complexities of financial strategies and SEC reporting, and I haven't tried to dig into the numbers and understand how much of the difference is "real" and how much is a product of financial engineering.

Much better then the combined 50 billion loss that the big 3 in Detroit reported. Imagine if that money was given to Lucid and Rivian! Shows you the incompetence in Detroit.

 

[borski]

LCID is basically a penny stock now

thanks for letting us know

 

[BS8899]

Problem with Rivian is the lazy midsize design- very inefficient, mini-me of the R1S. Looks like they hardly put any effort into the exterior design. Interior of Rivian R1S is too plasticky and the ride is very bad compared to the Gravity. Only upside is off-roading, but who does that?

When I drove the Rivian, I felt like i was riding a horse. But probably that is good if you off-road.

Lucid vehicles are definetly more luxurious and drive much better. Depends of what you want out of the vehicle.

Well, you can say the same thing about BMW. Mercedes, RangeRover, etc..

I am doubtful if the Lucid mid-size deviates substantially from the Gravity/Air ethos.

Personally, I like the Rivian look. It is distinct and comical. Is it as aerodynamic as Lucid's? Obviously not. But my Rivian consistently meets/exceeds on efficiency rating in highway driving, whilst my Lucid consistently misses its efficiency/range claims (by about 25%) when driven on the exactly the same routes. As I stated in my earlier post, yes, the Lucid is more efficient, but not as efficient as they claim. The Rivian delivers what they promised. Again, the Lucid is more refined. But the lingering SW problems, lagging in features, door lock/unlock, sparse service network and costly ASP/maintenance/insurance are real issues when tackling the mid-size market.

 

[Ktw13]

I don't follow Rivian as much but remember Lucid has AMP1, AMP2 and Coolidge facility.
As far as I know Rivian is only sold in US but Lucid is sold in many countries.
IMO Rivian is not easy to sell outside of US, I think they know this hence licenced their technology out to VW to capture overseas revenue this way.

 

[nashvillelucid]

Can we rerun these numbers after today’s earnings?

 

[HC_79]

Can we rerun these numbers after today’s earnings?

A ChatGPT summary

In Q4, both Lucid and Rivian posted similar total net losses (~$800M). However, Rivian delivered nearly twice as many vehicles, which significantly improves its per-vehicle math.

• Loss per vehicle (approx.)

Lucid: ~$150k per delivered vehicle
Rivian: ~$80k per delivered vehicle

On gross margin, the difference is more meaningful:

• Rivian generated positive gross profit in Q4 (meaning they made money on the vehicles themselves before operating expenses).

• Lucid’s gross margin was still negative, meaning it is losing money at the manufacturing level before SG&A and R&D are even factored in.

Bottom line: Rivian’s unit economics are currently stronger. Both are still unprofitable overall, but Rivian is closer to break-even on a per-vehicle basis.

 

[nashvillelucid]

I’m not sure they break it out, but I would love to know how much the botched rollout of the Gravity cost. It HAD to be fixed but there is no way that wasn’t a wild unexpected expense.

 

[socktucker]

I’m not sure they break it out, but I would love to know how much the botched rollout of the Gravity cost. It HAD to be fixed but there is no way that wasn’t a wild unexpected expense.

it was bad enough to get a lot of people fired.

 

[DeaneG]

I’m not sure they break it out, but I would love to know how much the botched rollout of the Gravity cost. It HAD to be fixed but there is no way that wasn’t a wild unexpected expense.

The eventual obsolescence of a product can be approximately thought of as happening at a fixed point in time, arising because of outside competition beyond a manufacturer's control. If the start of volume shipping is delayed, accumulated revenue is lost from the meaty center part of a product lifecycle. Not to mention reduced sales overall due to a damaged product reputation. It's extremely costly.

 

[TahoeMichael]

I’m not sure they break it out, but I would love to know how much the botched rollout of the Gravity cost. It HAD to be fixed but there is no way that wasn’t a wild unexpected expense.

While they obviously did waste some money replacing hardware components for problems that turned out to be software issues, I think the main cost of the poor launch wasn't increased cost. Rather it was fewer sales and reputational brand damage.

 

[HC_79]

While they obviously did waste some money replacing hardware components for problems that turned out to be software issues, I think the main cost of the poor launch wasn't increased cost. Rather it was fewer sales and reputational brand damage.

Agree. If they fumble the midsize launch, I hate to say it, but I don’t think they’d recover from it. The midsize launch really has no room for error at this point.

 

[thyname]

Tesla (meaning Elon) is no longer interested in making cars. If Lucid and Rivian fail, that’s game over in US for EVs. The “traditional” car makers, US and Japanese, and to a certain extent, Koreans, are only pretending they are making EVs for this market. Just to hedge the bets. This country decided in just one single year the EVs are anti-American. We are handing the next gen car makers to China. Way to go. If the European new generation of EVs fail (BMW iX3, MB GLS electrified, Volvo EX60), then the EV market literally belongs to the China. They are smart, patient, and deep pocketed. They can wait and chip at market share, navigating tariffs and all. In less than a hundred years, China cars will be the only game in town, obviously I will be dead before then, so…