Vanguard and BlackRock Both Cross 7% in Bloom Energy as Analysts Split on the Stock

Two of the world's largest asset managers have disclosed substantial stakes in Bloom Energy, with Vanguard Capital Management reporting a 7.39% economic interest and BlackRock pegging its own position at 7.5%. Both figures, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, are measured as of September 30. Vanguard's mandatory Schedule 13G arrived on Friday, while BlackRock's amended Schedule 13G was submitted on October 27.

The disclosures landed in the same stretch that produced a burst of sell-side activity on the fuel-cell maker. Barclays, according to media reports, lifted its price target on October 26 to $316 from $308 while keeping an "Equal Weight" rating — a higher valuation marker without a change in conviction. Morgan Stanley moved the other way on the target, raising its own to $335 roughly two weeks ago, and JPMorgan Chase cut its to $292. Both of those houses maintained their positive ratings.

A record quarter underneath the headlines

The anchor for all of this attention is the third-quarter 2026 report Bloom Energy published on October 22. Revenue hit an all-time high of $1,235.8 million, up 138.1% year over year, and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share came in at $0.94. Management also raised full-year 2026 guidance, now projecting revenue of $4.4 billion to $4.6 billion and adjusted diluted EPS of $3.10 to $3.40.

On the same day's earnings call, the company gave an update on its work for Nebius Group: the first power block at a planned 300 MW data-center site in New Jersey — Vineland, specifically — was ready for customer use. That milestone is a tangible operational marker, though it covers only the first block rather than the completed campus, and it does not by itself translate into a defined cash inflow.

The number that tempers the enthusiasm

Set against the record top line is a negative free cash flow of $181 million for the quarter. Adjusted profit and free cash flow answer different questions, and the gap between them is where the real debate sits: strong adjusted earnings describe results after the company's chosen adjustments, while the cash-flow figure shows that, at the bottom line, money went out rather than in. The specific cause cannot be pinned down from the reported figures alone.

That tension explains why the analyst community has not converged. Confidence in the business trajectory does not rule out divergent valuations, and neither blanket skepticism nor unchecked exuberance captures the picture. The stronger case for a durable story would be one in which expansion eventually shows up in free cash flow as well. Until then, the operating momentum and the financial quality of that growth deserve to be judged on separate ledgers.