1. Home
  2. /
  3. education
  4. /
  5. SPAC vs IPO: Which...

SPAC vs IPO: Which Path Leads to Greater Growth?

The landscape of public markets is continuously evolving, and for companies considering going public, the paths are numerous. Two established avenues stand tall: Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) and Initial Public Offerings (IPOs). 

These are distinct routes that cater to different types of companies and investors with varying goals and risk appetites. Our in-depth comparison provides a clear roadmap for understanding SPAC vs IPO concepts, aiding in making informed choices in the realm of investment.

Understanding SPACs

A SPAC is often dubbed a “blank check company.” It is a shell corporation with no commercial operations. Its sole purpose is to raise capital through an IPO for the purpose of acquiring an existing private company. 

Traditionally, a SPAC is created, or sponsored, by a team of investors or an investment management firm. After raising funds, a SPAC typically has two years to complete an acquisition or face liquidation.

The pace at which SPACs can move is perhaps their greatest advantage. Compared to traditional IPOs, SPACs can bring a company public within a few months. They offer private companies a faster, sometimes less scrutinized route to public markets. 

A critical benefit for investors is the opportunity to invest in private equity-type transactions, which often had been out of reach for the average person.

However, SPACs also bring certain drawbacks. Because they acquire undefined targets, investing in a SPAC can be more speculative. Additionally, there may be conflicts of interest between the SPAC management team and the shareholders, and fees can be high.

SPAC vs IPO: Detailed Comparison

Understanding IPOs

An Initial Public Offering is the traditional route to a public listing. In an IPO, a private company makes its shares available to the public and institutional investors through a new stock issuance. 

IPOs are a mark of maturity that indicates a company’s readiness to abide by the transparency and regulatory compliance required by the public markets.

The IPO process involves significant preparation, including detailed financial disclosures, audited financial statements, and an extensive review by the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

The road to an IPO can take many months to a year but lends credibility and offers stability to a company due to the thorough vetting process.

The cost and rigorous scrutiny of an IPO can be a disadvantage for some, potentially impacting the timing of a company’s market entry. 

But the benefits, including a potentially higher raise and a broader investor base, often outweigh the downsides for firms seeking a solid foundation in the public arena.

SPAC vs IPO: Key Differences

The structural distinctions between SPACs and IPOs are striking. SPACs are created expressly for acquiring a company, foregoing the traditional business operations that typically define a company’s worth. 

IPOs represent a ‘coming-of-age’ for businesses that have built a track record of growth and wish to expand further.

The timeframes differ greatly. A SPAC usually wraps up the acquiring process in months, while an IPO can take a company through a year-long journey to public markets. This pace difference can be crucial for companies looking to capitalize on market conditions quickly.

Regulatory scrutiny is heavier in the IPO route, often viewed as offering more protection for investors due to the in-depth examination of the company’s business health and operations. SPACs, while regulated, are less focused on the operational history since they acquire existing companies post-IPO.

When it comes to costs and financing, IPOs may be more expensive initially, considering the underwriting fees and the costs associated with the preparation of a public offering. 

SPACs, meanwhile, might incur lower upfront costs but can also involve significant management fees and a less clear valuation process. Investor participation can vary too. IPOs tend to attract institutional investors and the general public, while SPACs have historically been favored by private equity or hedge funds. 

The potential for dilution, however, can be higher in SPACs due to the warrants often attached to SPAC shares, whereas IPO investors receive shares based at market value at the time of the offering.

Pros and Cons of SPACs

The principal advantage of SPACs lies in the speed and flexibility they offer. They permit companies to make their public debut swiftly, which can be ideal in a hot market. 

Furthermore, SPACs can be a safer bet for companies in emerging industries with less predictable performance, as the market may hinge more on future potential than on established track records.

Conversely, SPACs have their downsides; the fragmented nature of the process can introduce risk.

The SPAC may fail to find a suitable acquisition target, or shareholders may not approve of the proposed acquisition. Investors essentially place their trust in the SPAC management team, relying on their skills to select a lucrative target.


Pros and Cons of IPOs

The rise of a company to its IPO is a testament to its success and stability. Undergoing an IPO can bring in substantial funds and put a company squarely in the public eye. 

The process fosters a level of investor confidence rooted in the company’s demonstrated ability to meet the rigorous standards of the public markets.

The flip side for IPOs is the complexity and length of the process. It might involve a more transparent dealing with finances and business strategies, which could be seen as a glass door for competitors. 

The cost, adherence to regulations, and at times, the unpredictability of market conditions at the time of the IPO can be daunting.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main allure of SPACs for companies considering going public?

The primary allure of SPACs is their ability to facilitate a faster public listing compared to the traditional IPO route

Companies can bypass the lengthy and detailed scrutiny process of an IPO, potentially capitalizing on favorable market conditions or strategic timings. 

Moreover, SPACs can offer access to experienced management teams and advisors who can guide newbie public companies through the complexities of the market.

Why do some investors prefer IPOs over SPACs?

Investors might prefer IPOs over SPACs for several reasons. Firstly, IPOs generally involve more thorough due diligence, providing a clearer picture of the company’s financial health and operational capabilities. This transparency can instill greater confidence in the investment. 

Additionally, IPOs often draw significant media attention, potentially increasing stock demand and value post-listing. 

Lastly, the traditional IPO process can offer investors a better understanding of market valuation, which might seem more concrete than the speculative nature of SPAC investments.

What are the risks associated with investing in a SPAC?

Investing in a SPAC comes with its unique set of risks. Since SPACs initially do not operate a business of their own, investments are largely speculative, banking on the management team’s ability to choose a profitable acquisition. 

The target company’s details are unknown at the time of investment, adding to the uncertainty. 

There is also the risk of dilution, as SPACs often issue warrants alongside shares, potentially reducing the value of previously issued shares once the acquisition is completed.

Can a company that initially went public through a SPAC route decide to undergo an IPO later?

Generally, once a company goes public—whether through a SPAC merger or an IPO—it remains a publicly traded entity and does not go through the IPO process again. 

However, a company that merged with a SPAC may decide to issue more shares or undertake secondary offerings later. These actions can resemble an IPO in that they involve selling shares to the public, but they do not constitute the company going public again since it’s already publicly traded.

How does the recent regulatory environment impact SPACs and IPOs?

The regulatory environment for both SPACs and IPOs is subject to change as financial authorities seek to protect investors and ensure market stability. 

In recent times, regulators have heightened their scrutiny of SPAC transactions, focusing on disclosure, governance, and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise. 

This increased attention aims to bring the regulatory treatment of SPACs closer to that of traditional IPOs, potentially impacting the speed and attractiveness of SPACs as a shortcut to public markets. 

It’s important for investors and companies to stay informed about the latest regulatory developments impacting both SPACs and IPOs.


Choosing between a SPAC and an IPO is more than a financial decision. It’s a strategic move that depends on a company’s individual goals, industry status, and operational maturity. 

Both avenues offer different paths to the same destination: a public market where a company’s growth can accelerate.

For investors and companies alike, understanding the nuances between SPACs and IPOs is essential for making informed decisions that align with both immediate goals and long-term strategies. 

By breaking down these intricate financial vehicles, we equip ourselves with the knowledge to navigate the shifting tides of investment and seize opportunities as they arise.