Fact check: Opening price of Google on 09/25/2025

Executive Summary

Two provided analyses of Alphabet’s opening price on 2025-09-25 make directly conflicting claims: one reports $244.84 and the other $252.28. Both figures come from the supplied historical-price extracts, and the discrepancy cannot be resolved from these two items alone without additional metadata about adjustments, tickers, or data feeds ^{[1] [2]}.

1. Identifying the Competing Claims That Matter Right Now

The two explicit claims in the provided materials are simple and incompatible: “opening price $244.84” (from a historical price listing) and “opening price $252.28” (from a different historical listing that also notes a $247.83 close). Both statements present themselves as definitive facts about the same calendar date, 2025-09-25, and both are attached to titles identifying Alphabet/Google share prices ^{[1] [2]}. Because both pieces assert an opening price for the same entity and date, the central factual issue is the numeric disagreement; the materials do not include reconciliatory notes, timestamps, or explanations in their brief analyses.

2. What the Sources Actually Say and How They Differ

Source A states $244.84 as the opening price and frames the figure as part of a “stock price history 2014–2025” extract, implying a historical series context ^[1]. Source B gives $252.28 as the opening price and simultaneously reports a $247.83 closing price for the same date, which signals intraday movement but does not explain the opening discrepancy ^[2]. The two excerpts carry different numeric answers and different surrounding details; one is framed purely as history, the other as share-price summary with an explicit close value. These differences suggest they derive from different datasets or calculation rules.

3. Plausible Reasons for the Numeric Conflict—What the Documents Allow

From the two texts alone, plausible causes for the mismatch include differences in data feeds, adjustments, or ticker definitions, because the documents present two distinct numeric outputs for the identical label “opening price” ^{[1] [2]}. The materials do not indicate whether figures are adjusted for corporate actions (splits, dividends) or whether they refer to different Alphabet listings (for example, different share classes or aggregate symbols). The supplied texts provide no metadata—no source timestamps, exchange specification, or adjustment flags—so these plausible technical causes remain hypotheses consistent with the evidence but not proven by it.

4. How Each Claim Frames Market Behavior and Why That Matters

Source B’s inclusion of a closing price ($247.83) alongside its opening figure situates its number inside an intraday narrative—an opening at $252.28 that closed lower—an interpretation that implies intraday volatility and supports a directional story ^[2]. Source A offers the opening price $244.84 without a same-day close in the supplied snippet, which does not permit the same narrative inference ^[1]. These framing differences show how the same calendar date can be used to support divergent narratives: one suggesting an intraday decline, the other simply reporting a starting-level figure that could lead to a different descriptive story about market movement if paired with other prices.

5. What Is Missing That Keeps This Dispute Unresolved

Both excerpts omit critical verification details: the specific ticker (class A vs class C), the exchange timestamp or timezone, any corporate-action adjustments, and the exact source feed or version used ^{[1] [2]}. Without these elements, neither claim can be definitively validated or invalidated using the provided materials. The absence of publication timestamps and methodological notes is the key gap preventing a conclusive reconciliation.

6. How To Resolve the Disagreement If You Need a Definitive Answer

Based solely on the provided analyses, resolution requires obtaining a third-party verification record that includes metadata: an exchange time-stamped quote for 2025-09-25, the ticker class, and adjustment flags. Because the two existing extracts disagree, the next step would be to compare both numbers to an authoritative exchange-level historical quote with full metadata. The current materials do not provide that authoritative anchor, so any definitive claim would need that additional corroboration.

7. What Each Source’s Presentation Might Say About Its Motives or Limitations

Neither snippet includes source provenance beyond a title, which limits the ability to detect bias or agenda; still, the presence of a closing price in one extract suggests a dataset oriented toward daily summaries, whereas the other’s historical-title framing suggests a broader historical listing ^{[2] [1]}. These presentation choices matter because they reveal dataset scope and intended use: summary feeds favor daily open/close/volume lines, while historical-aggregate products sometimes apply adjustments. These differences suggest different product goals rather than deliberate misinformation.

8. Bottom Line Assessment and Responsible Guidance

Given the direct numeric conflict between $244.84 and $252.28 and the lack of metadata in the supplied extracts, the correct opening price for Alphabet on 2025-09-25 cannot be determined from these two items alone ^{[1] [2]}. For authoritative confirmation, obtain an exchange-level historical quote for the specific Alphabet ticker and verify whether the provider applies adjustments or uses a different share class; only then can the discrepancy be conclusively resolved.