> Since our Series G in February, adoption has continued to grow across global enterprise customers, and our run-rate revenue crossed $47 billion earlier this month.
OK, so their self-reported run-rate revenue hit $47bn in early May.
Their valuations differ by about 13%. That's close enough that I wouldn't call it "blown past".
Things change fast in this space. Anthropic had a big boost from having the premier coding model for a while, but GPT-5.5 has closed that gap at a time when a lot of Anthropic customers are looking for cheaper alternatives.
Anthropic is coming off of a recent change to their enterprise billing that substantially changed the pricing for many users. They were smart to do the fundraising before the effects of that change could fully propagate.
The acceleration rate has been extraordinary… they went from mostly unknown outside AI circles to the number one player almost overnight. If that’s not “blown past” I don’t know what is.
The branding of Claude is so much stronger than ChatGPT. Even Anthropic is such better branding than OpenAI (especially considering they're not open at all).
My wife knows about Claude because that's what I use and we pay for. She uses it also as a result. And inevitably she will talk about Claude to her friends.
ChatGPT is a word now. People may use Perplexity, or Google, or Grok to ask questions online. And later they tell you "ChatGPT told me this". It's a new "I googled in Yahoo".
ChatGPT is the 5th most visited site (as well as has nearly a billion weekly active users) and none of the competitors are even close. In the consumer space, Gemini is doing well but Claude is not even in the same galaxy. OpenAI is undoubtedly the leader in consumer LLMs and by a large margin. I'm sure there are mixups, but if someone is telling you they're using chatGPT, they almost certainly mean they're using chatGPT.
>Few non-programmers have heard of anthropic or claude
They ran a super bowl ad. It's all over the construction industry. Claude is still not quite the Kleenex that ChatGPT is, but there is a pretty good chance lay people have heard of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude by now.
To disagree with the person below/above me that ChatGPT is the word used generically, when someone uses Gemini or Claude or Copilot, they TELL you which one they used, because they are essentially saying "i didnt use ChatGPT by choice."
Gemini is the one most likely to be used without people knowing which one they used.
Def sounds like a bubble to me. In my own bubble, ChatGTP is so well known over the others that people will often slip and refer to other AI services collectively as ChatGTP.
e.g. "I put it in chatgtp and..." when they actual asked Gemini.
Ironically their tussle with the US federal government is what made them a household name [1]
There's no better way to create awareness of a brand than to get it featured in the most popular reality TV show globally at the moment: "Thing Trump Did: Season 2."
Comparing $/MTokfor models makes as much sense as comparing $/ghz for CPUs. Models have different tokenizers and take varying number of "thinking" to get to a solution. A far better proxy is how much it takes to do a run, which takes all of that into account. Such metrics are much harder to gather, but once source claims $3357 for gpt-5.5 vs $4686 for opus, the opposite of your conclusion.
There is no conclusion , I only stated the only objective fact to compare with that will not change for you to me.
Everything else is subjective to your setup, use case, configuration tuning and so forth.
More importantly bean-counters and decision makers at even 150+ seat orgs are looking at pricing sheets and enterprise contracts not how it performs for some team in a specific harness today to make million dollar annual contracts. It is not common for procurement teams to do commission the level of detailed analysis or large scale pilots that will actually hold for the duration of contract.
That doesn't mean that GPT-5.5 is selling less than Claude at all, just that cost is not the primary driver if list price is not cheaper, there is reason these are published in the same format by every vendor, because the common metric is how finance likes to compare with.
Most variants of GPT-5.5 are less chatty and token-intensive than Opus 4.8/4.7, so despite the output token price being higher, it generates fewer tokens, so the net cost is lower.
Per-token pricing is totally sensible from the provider-perspective on mapping COGS to revenue, but for a consumer, different models will produce more or less tokens, meaning the cost calculation is multi-dimensional.
You can configure model to be terse/concise with output style ? There are plenty of popular projects like https://github.com/JuliusBrussee/caveman which do it for you even.
Input/Cache/Output ratios are use case and configuration dependent . Any benefits in one model can usually be roughly to another with configuration tuning, and discussions devolve into subjective experience.
Pricing sheet is the objective way to compare cost.
Anthropic is at the mercy of 3rd party datacenter contracts. AFAIK OpenAI will soon run mostly on on their own GPUs.
I don't like Altman and I am still upset about his memory deal last year but he prepared for the current shortages months before anybody else. Meanwhile, Anthropic seems to lack any plans besides third party contracting. IMHO they got very lucky with xAI and Google having spare capacity and willing to rent it. But what about next year?
Which also leaves OpenAI vulnerable to NVidia's aggressive pricing. To my knowledge Anthropic is relatively well positioned across multiple compute vendors/hardware providers.
It also leaves OpenAI vulnerable to any GPU breakthroughs. You could imagine company X comes up with a XPU that is 100% faster than what's currently there.*
Nvidia has probably monopolized several upstream supplies to manufacture critical chip components for next 2 years, the HBMs and Optics component from LITE, as well as TSM capacity. Let alone those power components they funded themselves.
Let's say you have a genius design, but you will have it close to impossible to compete with Nvidia in getting it to volumes.
Jensen is a player, he isn't fooling around with all these Asian trips just to wine and dine
nVidia can only 'monopolize' these components for itself inasmuch as other industry players are not seriously interested in them. This can change rather quickly.
We are still in the short-half-life phase of GPUs. If a 2x faster GPU is on the horizon, why wouldn't OpenAI already be in line to buy? They aren't buying just 1, they are buying multiple datacenters' worth. So they wouldn't be a low priority, back of the line customer.
A short half-life means you are going to quickly dispose of what you have now, anyway. In fact most current datacenters can't even handle Vera Rubin, so I don't think there's short term risk here.
Everyone has critical risk on multiple parts of the supply chain. GPUs and Memory are just things OAI mitigated for.
Power - Bigger bottleneck than GPU or RAM perhaps, New Grid connected capacity is typically 10+ year timescale with lot of regulatory friction. Captive capacity is also quite constrained - now Gas turbines have 7+ year wait time.
There are plenty of hard constraints that OAI cannot easily solve either.
Stargate as a project is real, they only stoped the Stargate UK thing.
Anthropics relativ longterm contract with xAI def shows that they can fill the capacity vs Musk not. OpenAI and Anthropic are both using a lot of capacity so its fair to say that this is an advantage.
If they stay very close competitive (which they are), your own datacenter does reduce token price.
>Anthropic is at the mercy of 3rd party datacenter contracts
I mean, this is a bit like complaining that McDonalds doesn't have their own herds of cows. OpenAI actually isn't in the business of buying GPUs or running data centres, and it's pretty weird to think that's an advantage (though it comes up constantly on here, as Anthropic keeps eating OpenAI's lunch).
There are many suppliers that are desperate to fight for Anthropics business, and it has shown an agility to embrace whatever advances in the industry come along. Anthropic is now running across a million or so Google TPUv8s, for instance. If tomorrow someone else comes out with a better GPU/TPU, they can embrace it in a heartbeat.
All while OpenAI sits on their rapidly depreciating GPUs.
Or...actually they won't, because OpenAI doesn't take business advice from HN. The vast majority of OpenAI's compute is from Microsoft, Oracle and so on. They're smart enough to not become a big hardware purchaser when that isn't their business. The core claim of your comment simply isn't true at all, nor is that the direction OpenAI is moving.
Anthropic is riding a hype wave as a result of brilliant marketing. OpenAI has the better products, higher reliability and better community relations. I don't expect the situation to continue.
I disagree. They have been winning lately because of better harnesses and interfaces. New actual decent features are shipped almost weekly on Claude code and Claude desktop.
OpenAI isn't shaky or vulnerable, this market will need at least 2 players.
I see most of the surge here comes FOMO AI spending which will have to be dialed down later half of the year, otherwise those companies will have to layoff to fund their AI bill, which is harmful to their business.
Anthropic grabs its bag at the peak, but feast is over.
This business and financial race is probably the craziest in human history, so zig-zags are expected. One company may take advantage on one curve while another is stuck in the pits.
How? OpenAI and Antrophic are basically the Big 2 racing away at light speed; the others who can't get near them are perhaps shaky & vulnerable. And sure, there's a garden full of those.
Because the market almost certainly can’t support two foundation model labs given the increasingly little difference across models and the massive sums of cash required to keep it all going. There is no big 2, just a race to survive and be the big 1.
There's at least two markets here. Consumer ad driven and worker augmentation markets. Likely a 3rd as a backend infrastructure provider to a bunch of value add companies.
I think Google has caught up enough to certainly be a player in the consumer ad driven market.
I also don't think only one foundation model adds up. Now that the trail is blazed a dozen companies can likely make a good enough model. The question is if there's a moat to make it winner take all
Google needs to catch up on what? Devs mindshare? The latest Opus 4.8 carefully selected benchmarks made sure to pick Gemini 3.1 Pro and not Gemini 3.5 Flash: 3.5 Flash is beating Opus 4.8 on several of the benchmarks Anthropic posted but simply was ignored.
I don't think SOTA-wise Google has a lot of catch up to do.
It probably can't support any because there's no moat and smaller, open source models are catching up. This is like investing $1T into mainframe computers in 1980.
I’m not so sure. We only need to look at Uber’s example of companies realizing they’re spending way too much and trying to rein it in. Claude has excellent revenue but it is highly dependent on very rich technology companies continuing to spend lavishly without seeing returns. The music will stop at some point and Anthropic will be hit the hardest. OpenAI may have less revenue but it is distributed across many, many more customers and use cases, it’s resilient. And even if Anthropic do, somehow, manage to keep their customers spending huge amounts on Claude, they’re very vulnerable to being undercut by OpenAI given codex is pretty much at parity. Anthropic seems more vulnerable to me.
I think it's somewhat guaranteed that the music will at least die down a little bit. We saw this with cloud companies being bitten by cloud cost optimization initiatives. I can't imagine we won't see the same with AI, especially as the workforce stops trying to tokenmaxx to save their role.
Every week there's at least one post on the HN front page bitching about API errors from Claude because Anthropic doesn't have enough serving capacity. I really don't see any signs they're "spending too much", the actual evidence on the ground seems to be exactly the opposite: constant exasperation that they're not spending enough.
I just finished talking to a dev manager friend of mine at a household name company.
He told me they are massively pulling back on the AI stuff.
Right now the lashback is about cost, because that's the most easily measured pain point.
Soon, we'll start seeing a deeper understanding of the quality issues. At that point, it's likely this whole experiment gets firmly put in a bin of the toolbox where it belongs.
I know people at medium size companies where they are tracking AI costs very carefully. They are pulling back to levels under $100/week in AI spend per engineer, encouraging use of lower quality, lower cost models, etc.
I don't doubt you, but $100 is approximately the cost to company of one hour of dev time. If companies end up being willing to spend only 2% of their dev budget on AI, this bubble is not going to last long.
I mean Anthropic’s customers are spending too much on Claude. Anthropic’s customers are encouraging tokenmaxxing amongst their employees; measuring employees by token usage. That’s great for Anthropic’s short term revenue numbers but terrible long term because at some point companies will realize tokenmaxxing is not good. OpenAI is much less exposed to tokenmaxxing, which is a good thing.
Tokenmaxxing is the practice of measuring employees by how many tokens they use, encouraging employees to burn tokens needlessly, it is unrelated to what agents can do.
If a task can be completed with 100k tokens but employees are considered better performers if they complete it with 500k tokens instead… that’s unsustainable and cannot possibly benefit Anthropic in the long term.
At some point, Amazon and Uber and so on and so forth are going to realize that actually, employees using 100k tokens or even 50k tokens is better than 500k and Anthropic’s revenue will fall off a cliff.
I think removing limits is fine. There’ll be overspend and at some point adjustments in expectations as we learn more about the value that can be delivered which will likely result in a reduction in spend, but even now, during this period of relative immaturity about measuring the value of output, so long as more tokens = more output, I don’t think the introduction of limits represents much of a risk to Anthropic and OpenAI. Tokenmaxxing is uniquely bad because it is not tied to any additional value (more tokens for the same output).
And I could be wrong about tokenmaxxing being a Claude specific problem but as far as I can tell, all of the major companies encouraging employees to maximize their token usage are Claude Code users. And the music has to stop on that at some point, whether because the companies run out of money or because they learn better ways of measuring productivity in the AI age. And if tokenmaxxing is what is driving Anthropic’s lead in revenue, it could be catastrophic to lose that, because Anthropic are spending billions of dollars per month on the infrastructure to support it.
If tokenmaxxing is evenly distributed between Anthropic and OpenAI then they’ll both hurt but equal hurt shouldn’t disadvantage either much.
As someone who knows admittedly knows nothing about startup funding rounds, how many more rounds of funding can they do before an IPO? Is it effectively infinite?
Going off the other reply, I wonder if a highly-active secondary market means that companies can raise series [A-Z]+ rounds effectively forever, where each "round" just refers to a giant purchase of shares under strict company supervision. Is this the new game for startups?
I can't speak for the specific case of Stripe, but it's fairly common for private companies to have a "tender offer" in which employees have the opportunity to sell some portion of their equity. This is often done in conjunction with a new investment round.
There's a newish term for this: RLO, Recurring Liquidity Opportunity. These are tender offers at some recurring interval. Even some companies that have a shorter lifespan (say 7 years) offer this.
I believe Databricks series L round raised $4B in late 2025, but earlier this year they raised another $5B so technically they've maybe completed series M round and are "on" series N round now? The press releases are a bit confusing to me.
It's semantics, but the latest raise might have been a follow-on to Series M, not a new round (to be clear, I know nothing about their finances, just speaking from experience at another company).
I imagine there are ways for existing investors to achieve liquidity while still raising venture funding. But an IPO is "the" liquidity event and I imagine there will be pressure from investors for that.
I also imagine that venture funding rounds have a lower ceiling than the public markets - but at these rounds I'm not so sure!
usually you would go through seed funding, the series a,b, and possibly a1 and b1. If you entered c or d territory it meant that you still had a chance but vc would be following you very closely. After d, you could raise money, but it would be under very unfavorable conditions
The number of rounds is irrelevant. Having crunched the data, what is relevant to terms is simply as you'd expect the rate of growth. The only reason it rarely happens with fast growing companies is that the liquidity of an IPO is attractive. As a result, companies doing many rounds are disproportionately companies that are performing too poorly to try and IPO.
they can do as many as they want. but at some point investors need/want to exit their positions and push for an IPO. That point is different for every company.
Anthropic has a great product, but what's going on in the stock market is astonishing. Companies waiting to be valued at a trillion dollars before going public? (I'm writing this comment with the assumption that they will go public soon and the valuation will be higher than this $965 billion dollar private valuation) The stock market used to be a place for companies to raise money from investors. But that isn't what it is anymore, it's a dumping ground. Venture capitalists & private investors are sucking all of the possible growth and future upside from these companies and then dumping them on retail investors when there's nothing left. There is no growth or upside left by the time these companies go public. If you invest in these IPOs you are buying the absolute peak with all potential future profits baked into the price, with nowhere left to go but down.
Yeup, no shortage of tech IPOs over the past five years that are now valued at like 5% of what they were after being dumped onto the market: ZoomInfo, Bumble, Gemini
And many more that are 50% of what they were: Snowflake, Coinbase
And many more that went back to private companies and then were sold off: Carbon Black, etc...
I'm actually too lazy to go list out all of them.
But employees, beware, of those gnarly lockup periods post IPO where all the better classed options than yours get to exit.
... still, "on average" IPOs tend to make money, no? that's why people (fight to be able) to buy them.
this gives a nice comfy exit to many late-stage investors, etc.
and, of course, it's hard to say that it's great that these companies are mere shadows of themselves post-IPO, but also it's impossible to non-misleadingly assess each IPO as if they were in a vacuum.
obviously Coinbase is/was a stupid venture, but at the same time it was a pretty good bet at the time. and the same stands for a lot of these.
Often only minimal shares are floated on the public market - 5-10% now is not unusual. Also, founders keep priority shares to keep the company.
So IPO is not particularly a liquidity event for investors as much as a valuation/pricing event. Indeed, the tech IPO's that have done the worst were the ones where shareholders wanted liquidity.
Clearly none of the multi-trillion dollar companies could find a buyer now if they really needed to sell themselves, so they're not really "worth" that much. (Nor are their founders, who can't sell their shares without tanking the stock.)
So these stocks are more like derivatives: a way to bet on the future where betting volume is huge relative to the underlying asset.
Looking back it feels like GOOG, FB, TSLA etc. all went IPO at reasonable valuations. Retail & public investors did benefit long term and continuing to get higher valuations in public is not a small feat compared to a VC valuation.
A trillion dollar valuation seemed so hard back in the day and now there are so many companies in that list. What's the next level?
Is this just signs that $ is no longer the inflating at the same rate over time and its the realistic inflation that is reflecting in the stock market?
Prices of all goods surely has to follow to make up for the revenue needed to sustain these valuations and also the salaries to sustain the prices.
Unfortunately, those who are not in the loop is not going to have a good time.
> Venture capitalists & private investors are sucking all of the possible growth and future upside from these companies and then dumping them on retail investors when there's nothing left.
A lot of the money that is deployed by VCs comes from pension funds and asset managers that ultimately manage money for the average Joe.
I wish I could invest into it, I'd at the very least have invested in their Series F. It was a no brainer by that point. If anyone could teach me how to get into stuff like this, that'd be awesome. I'm from the Netherlands, so not American. Though I'm married to an American.
Say you join Anthropic now as an employee. What are the chances of your equity appreciating in value? I don't think we have any historical precedents to this.
This did round involve a secondary? If yes, any data to suggest that these secondaries are leading to increased spending outside of housing and propping up the local economy?
That announcement is a bit short on details. I suppose that, like in the previous rounds, there are some strings attached and they'll not get all of it at once.
Hynix is participating with a new circular deal. Hynix is also valued at $1 trillion now, which is positively insane.
This scam will implode harder that the housing bubble.
The circulation of money in AI is deeply troubling (NVIDIA being one of the worst I believe), either the bubble doesn’t pop and corruption like this is considered legal (self-inflating money amongst friends) or it pops and the financial hurt will be felt for a decade.
They eventually stop, Excel has a max column size of 16,384. Not sure what letter combo that would be (ZZZZZZZZZZ or something?), but it does eventually halt.
Revenue up to $47B. Looking forward to the Ed Zitron hot take on this one! No doubt he will fling more baseless accusations of fraud and other nonsense.
This has become a meme which is way out over its skis. Yes, run-rate is not the complete story, but "impossible to interpret" is way overstating the case.
> Since our Series G in February, adoption has continued to grow across global enterprise customers, and our run-rate revenue crossed $47 billion earlier this month.
OK, so their self-reported run-rate revenue hit $47bn in early May.
For comparison:
Apr 6th 2026: https://www.anthropic.com/news/google-broadcom-partnership-c... - "Demand from Claude customers has accelerated in 2026. Our run-rate revenue has now surpassed $30 billion—up from approximately $9 billion at the end of 2025."
So that's $30bn at the start of April.
Feb 12th 2026: https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-raises-30-billion-s... - "Today, our run-rate revenue is $14 billion, with this figure growing over 10x annually in each of those past three years."
That was $14bn on Feb 12th.
And $9bn in December (according to the above April 6th link.)
Probably the bigger headline here is that they’ve blown past OpenAI in revenue and valuation, with OpenAI looking increasingly shaky and vulnerable.
Their valuations differ by about 13%. That's close enough that I wouldn't call it "blown past".
Things change fast in this space. Anthropic had a big boost from having the premier coding model for a while, but GPT-5.5 has closed that gap at a time when a lot of Anthropic customers are looking for cheaper alternatives.
Anthropic is coming off of a recent change to their enterprise billing that substantially changed the pricing for many users. They were smart to do the fundraising before the effects of that change could fully propagate.
The acceleration rate has been extraordinary… they went from mostly unknown outside AI circles to the number one player almost overnight. If that’s not “blown past” I don’t know what is.
The branding of Claude is so much stronger than ChatGPT. Even Anthropic is such better branding than OpenAI (especially considering they're not open at all).
My wife knows about Claude because that's what I use and we pay for. She uses it also as a result. And inevitably she will talk about Claude to her friends.
OpenAI is as open as Anthropic is anthropic.
Great line. The irony of these names can't be overstated.
for normies it is the exact opposite.
> The branding of Claude is so much stronger than ChatGPT.
Absolutely not, you live in a bubble. Everybody knows about ChatGPT.
Few non-programmers have heard of anthropic or claude, nor do they care. But they all know what ChatGPT is.
ChatGPT is a word now. People may use Perplexity, or Google, or Grok to ask questions online. And later they tell you "ChatGPT told me this". It's a new "I googled in Yahoo".
ChatGPT is the 5th most visited site (as well as has nearly a billion weekly active users) and none of the competitors are even close. In the consumer space, Gemini is doing well but Claude is not even in the same galaxy. OpenAI is undoubtedly the leader in consumer LLMs and by a large margin. I'm sure there are mixups, but if someone is telling you they're using chatGPT, they almost certainly mean they're using chatGPT.
>Few non-programmers have heard of anthropic or claude
They ran a super bowl ad. It's all over the construction industry. Claude is still not quite the Kleenex that ChatGPT is, but there is a pretty good chance lay people have heard of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude by now.
To disagree with the person below/above me that ChatGPT is the word used generically, when someone uses Gemini or Claude or Copilot, they TELL you which one they used, because they are essentially saying "i didnt use ChatGPT by choice."
Gemini is the one most likely to be used without people knowing which one they used.
Agreed. My Mom, who is a grandma, uses ChatGPT every day. Lots of nontech people use it.
Is she paying for anything though?
Def sounds like a bubble to me. In my own bubble, ChatGTP is so well known over the others that people will often slip and refer to other AI services collectively as ChatGTP.
e.g. "I put it in chatgtp and..." when they actual asked Gemini.
Everyone knew Altavista too
I remember seeing expensive multi-page ads for Claude in the New Yorker over a year ago.
Their marketing has been working the high end of the “regular people” market for a good while.
Do ordinary people really know what Anthropic is?
They know that "claude's the good one"
They certainly know claude. I keep telling them they are all about the same.
They know the cool kids have ditched OpenAI and now use Claude
Of course not. Normal people are using gemini, it comes pre-installed on Android now.
This is the answer for gen pop. Gemini is going to mop up the floor on most use cases as its ingrained in google search.
Ironically their tussle with the US federal government is what made them a household name [1]
There's no better way to create awareness of a brand than to get it featured in the most popular reality TV show globally at the moment: "Thing Trump Did: Season 2."
[1] Proof: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=... (see the massive spike in January of this year)
> but GPT-5.5 has closed that gap at a time when a lot of Anthropic customers are looking for cheaper alternatives.
GPT-5.5 is a bit more expensive than Opus ? Current list prices
Deepseek perhaps would be the top threat on a pure price/performance metric for either of them. It doesn't look like OAI is going for the value play .Comparing $/MTokfor models makes as much sense as comparing $/ghz for CPUs. Models have different tokenizers and take varying number of "thinking" to get to a solution. A far better proxy is how much it takes to do a run, which takes all of that into account. Such metrics are much harder to gather, but once source claims $3357 for gpt-5.5 vs $4686 for opus, the opposite of your conclusion.
https://artificialanalysis.ai/?cost=intelligence-vs-cost
There is no conclusion , I only stated the only objective fact to compare with that will not change for you to me.
Everything else is subjective to your setup, use case, configuration tuning and so forth.
More importantly bean-counters and decision makers at even 150+ seat orgs are looking at pricing sheets and enterprise contracts not how it performs for some team in a specific harness today to make million dollar annual contracts. It is not common for procurement teams to do commission the level of detailed analysis or large scale pilots that will actually hold for the duration of contract.
That doesn't mean that GPT-5.5 is selling less than Claude at all, just that cost is not the primary driver if list price is not cheaper, there is reason these are published in the same format by every vendor, because the common metric is how finance likes to compare with.
Most variants of GPT-5.5 are less chatty and token-intensive than Opus 4.8/4.7, so despite the output token price being higher, it generates fewer tokens, so the net cost is lower.
Per-token pricing is totally sensible from the provider-perspective on mapping COGS to revenue, but for a consumer, different models will produce more or less tokens, meaning the cost calculation is multi-dimensional.
You can configure model to be terse/concise with output style ? There are plenty of popular projects like https://github.com/JuliusBrussee/caveman which do it for you even.
Input/Cache/Output ratios are use case and configuration dependent . Any benefits in one model can usually be roughly to another with configuration tuning, and discussions devolve into subjective experience.
Pricing sheet is the objective way to compare cost.
Anthropic is at the mercy of 3rd party datacenter contracts. AFAIK OpenAI will soon run mostly on on their own GPUs.
I don't like Altman and I am still upset about his memory deal last year but he prepared for the current shortages months before anybody else. Meanwhile, Anthropic seems to lack any plans besides third party contracting. IMHO they got very lucky with xAI and Google having spare capacity and willing to rent it. But what about next year?
Which also leaves OpenAI vulnerable to NVidia's aggressive pricing. To my knowledge Anthropic is relatively well positioned across multiple compute vendors/hardware providers.
It also leaves OpenAI vulnerable to any GPU breakthroughs. You could imagine company X comes up with a XPU that is 100% faster than what's currently there.*
* NVidia GPU, Google TPU, Apple SoC, etc.
You have missed the point
Nvidia has probably monopolized several upstream supplies to manufacture critical chip components for next 2 years, the HBMs and Optics component from LITE, as well as TSM capacity. Let alone those power components they funded themselves.
Let's say you have a genius design, but you will have it close to impossible to compete with Nvidia in getting it to volumes.
Jensen is a player, he isn't fooling around with all these Asian trips just to wine and dine
nVidia can only 'monopolize' these components for itself inasmuch as other industry players are not seriously interested in them. This can change rather quickly.
We are still in the short-half-life phase of GPUs. If a 2x faster GPU is on the horizon, why wouldn't OpenAI already be in line to buy? They aren't buying just 1, they are buying multiple datacenters' worth. So they wouldn't be a low priority, back of the line customer.
A short half-life means you are going to quickly dispose of what you have now, anyway. In fact most current datacenters can't even handle Vera Rubin, so I don't think there's short term risk here.
> their own GPUs
Everyone has critical risk on multiple parts of the supply chain. GPUs and Memory are just things OAI mitigated for.
Power - Bigger bottleneck than GPU or RAM perhaps, New Grid connected capacity is typically 10+ year timescale with lot of regulatory friction. Captive capacity is also quite constrained - now Gas turbines have 7+ year wait time.
There are plenty of hard constraints that OAI cannot easily solve either.
The same 3rd party datacenters from the same few companies that everything else runs on? If there's demand, hyperscalers will supply.
Don't worry, they will buy up OpenAI's contracts once they implode.
Stargate is not real.
It is not clear that running one's own datacenter is a competitive advantage. Why do you think OpenAI can handle that?
Stargate as a project is real, they only stoped the Stargate UK thing.
Anthropics relativ longterm contract with xAI def shows that they can fill the capacity vs Musk not. OpenAI and Anthropic are both using a lot of capacity so its fair to say that this is an advantage.
If they stay very close competitive (which they are), your own datacenter does reduce token price.
>Anthropic is at the mercy of 3rd party datacenter contracts
I mean, this is a bit like complaining that McDonalds doesn't have their own herds of cows. OpenAI actually isn't in the business of buying GPUs or running data centres, and it's pretty weird to think that's an advantage (though it comes up constantly on here, as Anthropic keeps eating OpenAI's lunch).
There are many suppliers that are desperate to fight for Anthropics business, and it has shown an agility to embrace whatever advances in the industry come along. Anthropic is now running across a million or so Google TPUv8s, for instance. If tomorrow someone else comes out with a better GPU/TPU, they can embrace it in a heartbeat.
All while OpenAI sits on their rapidly depreciating GPUs.
Or...actually they won't, because OpenAI doesn't take business advice from HN. The vast majority of OpenAI's compute is from Microsoft, Oracle and so on. They're smart enough to not become a big hardware purchaser when that isn't their business. The core claim of your comment simply isn't true at all, nor is that the direction OpenAI is moving.
Anthropic is riding a hype wave as a result of brilliant marketing. OpenAI has the better products, higher reliability and better community relations. I don't expect the situation to continue.
I disagree. They have been winning lately because of better harnesses and interfaces. New actual decent features are shipped almost weekly on Claude code and Claude desktop.
OpenAI has a broken business model
I agree
OpenAI isn't shaky or vulnerable, this market will need at least 2 players.
I see most of the surge here comes FOMO AI spending which will have to be dialed down later half of the year, otherwise those companies will have to layoff to fund their AI bill, which is harmful to their business.
Anthropic grabs its bag at the peak, but feast is over.
Having used Codex though I don’t think OpenAI needs to worry. It’s a solid product and they will share the market.
Anthropic is the Google to OpenAI's Yahoo.
I wonder if being consistently candid is a superior business strategy?
This business and financial race is probably the craziest in human history, so zig-zags are expected. One company may take advantage on one curve while another is stuck in the pits.
How? OpenAI and Antrophic are basically the Big 2 racing away at light speed; the others who can't get near them are perhaps shaky & vulnerable. And sure, there's a garden full of those.
Because the market almost certainly can’t support two foundation model labs given the increasingly little difference across models and the massive sums of cash required to keep it all going. There is no big 2, just a race to survive and be the big 1.
There's at least two markets here. Consumer ad driven and worker augmentation markets. Likely a 3rd as a backend infrastructure provider to a bunch of value add companies.
I think Google has caught up enough to certainly be a player in the consumer ad driven market.
I also don't think only one foundation model adds up. Now that the trail is blazed a dozen companies can likely make a good enough model. The question is if there's a moat to make it winner take all
China will make sure they have a frontier lab, there's plenty of chance for Google to catch up once the compute crunch gets more serious.
Google needs to catch up on what? Devs mindshare? The latest Opus 4.8 carefully selected benchmarks made sure to pick Gemini 3.1 Pro and not Gemini 3.5 Flash: 3.5 Flash is beating Opus 4.8 on several of the benchmarks Anthropic posted but simply was ignored.
I don't think SOTA-wise Google has a lot of catch up to do.
Disagree, both are coexisting fine today.
A series "H" for $65 billion and no path to profitability is existing fine?
https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/20/anthropic-says-its-about-t...
Sure, if you think there is even a small chance that OpenAI and Anthropic will get to AGI, it's practically a bargain.
They don't seem too far off to me.
It probably can't support any because there's no moat and smaller, open source models are catching up. This is like investing $1T into mainframe computers in 1980.
isn't Google going to win the race anyway ?
That feels really hard to argue now that Anthropic/OpenAI are so much bigger
How the hell do you crush a ~1T company on the one thing they have all their focus on?
If it cant support two competing compamies, something is very wrong. Oligopoly is bad, monopoly worst.
Well functioning market is supposed to have many, as in a lot, companies with similar products. To create competition.
Google likely has its market share too, you can track how fast Cloud revenue increased.
It's a gold rush and Google is both selling shovels and digging for gold itself.
I’m not so sure. We only need to look at Uber’s example of companies realizing they’re spending way too much and trying to rein it in. Claude has excellent revenue but it is highly dependent on very rich technology companies continuing to spend lavishly without seeing returns. The music will stop at some point and Anthropic will be hit the hardest. OpenAI may have less revenue but it is distributed across many, many more customers and use cases, it’s resilient. And even if Anthropic do, somehow, manage to keep their customers spending huge amounts on Claude, they’re very vulnerable to being undercut by OpenAI given codex is pretty much at parity. Anthropic seems more vulnerable to me.
I think it's somewhat guaranteed that the music will at least die down a little bit. We saw this with cloud companies being bitten by cloud cost optimization initiatives. I can't imagine we won't see the same with AI, especially as the workforce stops trying to tokenmaxx to save their role.
If you look at the adoption curve of Claude, I don't think we have reached anything near peak.
Every week there's at least one post on the HN front page bitching about API errors from Claude because Anthropic doesn't have enough serving capacity. I really don't see any signs they're "spending too much", the actual evidence on the ground seems to be exactly the opposite: constant exasperation that they're not spending enough.
Unlike OpenAI, a lot of Claude's infra problems are self-inflicted and not completely raw-capacity related.
What he means is the customers realizing they are spending too much on Anthropic.
I just finished talking to a dev manager friend of mine at a household name company.
He told me they are massively pulling back on the AI stuff.
Right now the lashback is about cost, because that's the most easily measured pain point.
Soon, we'll start seeing a deeper understanding of the quality issues. At that point, it's likely this whole experiment gets firmly put in a bin of the toolbox where it belongs.
I know people at medium size companies where they are tracking AI costs very carefully. They are pulling back to levels under $100/week in AI spend per engineer, encouraging use of lower quality, lower cost models, etc.
You can run models near 24/7 per developers at that price with judicious choice of subscriptions, so that's not really saying much.
Most people don't yet have mature enough setups to fully exploit that level of use.
With open models, perhaps. But $100/week isn't going to get you 24/7 use of Claude Sonnet.
I don't doubt you, but $100 is approximately the cost to company of one hour of dev time. If companies end up being willing to spend only 2% of their dev budget on AI, this bubble is not going to last long.
I agree. $100/week is absurdly low if you want to allow for any real experimentation and productive use of these tools.
I mean Anthropic’s customers are spending too much on Claude. Anthropic’s customers are encouraging tokenmaxxing amongst their employees; measuring employees by token usage. That’s great for Anthropic’s short term revenue numbers but terrible long term because at some point companies will realize tokenmaxxing is not good. OpenAI is much less exposed to tokenmaxxing, which is a good thing.
> at some point companies will realize tokenmaxxing is not good
Why? Have we figured out the limits of what agents can do?
> OpenAI is much less exposed to tokenmaxxing
I don't think this is true, from my own experience & chatting with my acquaintances.
Tokenmaxxing is the practice of measuring employees by how many tokens they use, encouraging employees to burn tokens needlessly, it is unrelated to what agents can do.
If a task can be completed with 100k tokens but employees are considered better performers if they complete it with 500k tokens instead… that’s unsustainable and cannot possibly benefit Anthropic in the long term.
At some point, Amazon and Uber and so on and so forth are going to realize that actually, employees using 100k tokens or even 50k tokens is better than 500k and Anthropic’s revenue will fall off a cliff.
Oh. I thought tokenmaxxing was just removing token limits
I think removing limits is fine. There’ll be overspend and at some point adjustments in expectations as we learn more about the value that can be delivered which will likely result in a reduction in spend, but even now, during this period of relative immaturity about measuring the value of output, so long as more tokens = more output, I don’t think the introduction of limits represents much of a risk to Anthropic and OpenAI. Tokenmaxxing is uniquely bad because it is not tied to any additional value (more tokens for the same output).
And I could be wrong about tokenmaxxing being a Claude specific problem but as far as I can tell, all of the major companies encouraging employees to maximize their token usage are Claude Code users. And the music has to stop on that at some point, whether because the companies run out of money or because they learn better ways of measuring productivity in the AI age. And if tokenmaxxing is what is driving Anthropic’s lead in revenue, it could be catastrophic to lose that, because Anthropic are spending billions of dollars per month on the infrastructure to support it.
If tokenmaxxing is evenly distributed between Anthropic and OpenAI then they’ll both hurt but equal hurt shouldn’t disadvantage either much.
“Caballo que alcanza, gana”
What is this, Series for ants? It barely covers Andrej's sign-on bonus.
As someone who knows admittedly knows nothing about startup funding rounds, how many more rounds of funding can they do before an IPO? Is it effectively infinite?
Effectively infinite. Databricks is a good example. They're still private after 13 years and closed a Series L round last year. Stripe is similar.
Having been through an IPO before, it was good for employee liquidity, but bad for the culture and long-term success of the company.
Dead capital. There's no need for public funding until they are reasy to cash out at the top, if ever.
How do investors cash out? Do they sell to new round investors?
Going off the other reply, I wonder if a highly-active secondary market means that companies can raise series [A-Z]+ rounds effectively forever, where each "round" just refers to a giant purchase of shares under strict company supervision. Is this the new game for startups?
If investor pool becomes too loose the company becomes de facto public, subject to all SEC-enforced regulations.
The judgment is subjective though, so pushing the boundaries could be a calculated risk.
Correct. There is also a secondary market.
so how do stripe employees get liquidity? can anyone sell their secondary shares?
I can't speak for the specific case of Stripe, but it's fairly common for private companies to have a "tender offer" in which employees have the opportunity to sell some portion of their equity. This is often done in conjunction with a new investment round.
Bankruptcy court?
FTX bought 8% of Anthropic for $500m in 2021.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/josipamajic/2026/03/18/ftx-owne...
Tender offers.
https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tender_offer
https://carta.com/learn/equity/liquidity-events/tender-offer...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
(secondary markets are sometimes an option, depending on stock transfer restrictions)
Private/secondary markets.
There's a newish term for this: RLO, Recurring Liquidity Opportunity. These are tender offers at some recurring interval. Even some companies that have a shorter lifespan (say 7 years) offer this.
regular tender offers
Stripe might buy back the shares at a good price. They might be able to sell on secondary markets.
I believe the canonical example is Databricks on round L
I believe Databricks series L round raised $4B in late 2025, but earlier this year they raised another $5B so technically they've maybe completed series M round and are "on" series N round now? The press releases are a bit confusing to me.
It's semantics, but the latest raise might have been a follow-on to Series M, not a new round (to be clear, I know nothing about their finances, just speaking from experience at another company).
What happens when you make it to Z do they then start doing Z1 rounds or does it reset to AA like excel (though that would be confusing)? Hex?
The AA scheme has already been used for "down round", so they might have to get creative.
I imagine there are ways for existing investors to achieve liquidity while still raising venture funding. But an IPO is "the" liquidity event and I imagine there will be pressure from investors for that.
I also imagine that venture funding rounds have a lower ceiling than the public markets - but at these rounds I'm not so sure!
Once they reach series Z does it go back to A or do we get a new format like AA, AB ?
We live in Unicode times. We switch to Greek alphabets.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ σ τ υ φ χ ψ ω
After those are used up, it moves to Devanagari, Hangul, Katakana, Hiragana, and then Kanji.
usually you would go through seed funding, the series a,b, and possibly a1 and b1. If you entered c or d territory it meant that you still had a chance but vc would be following you very closely. After d, you could raise money, but it would be under very unfavorable conditions
The number of rounds is irrelevant. Having crunched the data, what is relevant to terms is simply as you'd expect the rate of growth. The only reason it rarely happens with fast growing companies is that the liquidity of an IPO is attractive. As a result, companies doing many rounds are disproportionately companies that are performing too poorly to try and IPO.
Depends on the investors if they see growth. The downside is dilution. Preferably they just want the Series I as the IPO in this case.
They cannot raise forever, SpaceX has done more rounds but the timing is most important.
Yes, whatever you like
they can do as many as they want. but at some point investors need/want to exit their positions and push for an IPO. That point is different for every company.
What is run-rate revenue and how is it different than revenue (classic)?
That you all have to pay of course. With interest. Directly or indirectly. Through subscriptions or through pension funds and such.
Anthropic has a great product, but what's going on in the stock market is astonishing. Companies waiting to be valued at a trillion dollars before going public? (I'm writing this comment with the assumption that they will go public soon and the valuation will be higher than this $965 billion dollar private valuation) The stock market used to be a place for companies to raise money from investors. But that isn't what it is anymore, it's a dumping ground. Venture capitalists & private investors are sucking all of the possible growth and future upside from these companies and then dumping them on retail investors when there's nothing left. There is no growth or upside left by the time these companies go public. If you invest in these IPOs you are buying the absolute peak with all potential future profits baked into the price, with nowhere left to go but down.
Yeup, no shortage of tech IPOs over the past five years that are now valued at like 5% of what they were after being dumped onto the market: ZoomInfo, Bumble, Gemini
And many more that are 50% of what they were: Snowflake, Coinbase
And many more that went back to private companies and then were sold off: Carbon Black, etc...
I'm actually too lazy to go list out all of them.
But employees, beware, of those gnarly lockup periods post IPO where all the better classed options than yours get to exit.
... still, "on average" IPOs tend to make money, no? that's why people (fight to be able) to buy them.
this gives a nice comfy exit to many late-stage investors, etc.
and, of course, it's hard to say that it's great that these companies are mere shadows of themselves post-IPO, but also it's impossible to non-misleadingly assess each IPO as if they were in a vacuum.
obviously Coinbase is/was a stupid venture, but at the same time it was a pretty good bet at the time. and the same stands for a lot of these.
Often only minimal shares are floated on the public market - 5-10% now is not unusual. Also, founders keep priority shares to keep the company.
So IPO is not particularly a liquidity event for investors as much as a valuation/pricing event. Indeed, the tech IPO's that have done the worst were the ones where shareholders wanted liquidity.
Clearly none of the multi-trillion dollar companies could find a buyer now if they really needed to sell themselves, so they're not really "worth" that much. (Nor are their founders, who can't sell their shares without tanking the stock.)
So these stocks are more like derivatives: a way to bet on the future where betting volume is huge relative to the underlying asset.
> But that isn't what it is anymore, it's a dumping ground.
We got "dumped" Google and Facebook, so... Those probably made up for all the other "dumps".
We also got "dumped" TSLA, which is meme-ing in the trillions at the moment.
You can short Anthropic at IPO if you want...
Looking back it feels like GOOG, FB, TSLA etc. all went IPO at reasonable valuations. Retail & public investors did benefit long term and continuing to get higher valuations in public is not a small feat compared to a VC valuation.
A trillion dollar valuation seemed so hard back in the day and now there are so many companies in that list. What's the next level?
Is this just signs that $ is no longer the inflating at the same rate over time and its the realistic inflation that is reflecting in the stock market?
Prices of all goods surely has to follow to make up for the revenue needed to sustain these valuations and also the salaries to sustain the prices.
Unfortunately, those who are not in the loop is not going to have a good time.
Google IPO 20 years ago, Tesla 15 years ago, facebook almost 15 years ago.
Situations change.
When did they change? 3 years and 4 months ago? 1 year ago? 8 years?
Because when Facebook IPO'd everyone was saying the stock market was a dumping ground...
Same with Google...
Same with Pets.com and WebVan...
Few Pheonix(s) rise from the ashes of many Unicorns.
Maybe but can you elaborate what the changes are?
Or he can just steer clear of the eventual Anthropic stock. Shorting is not the only strategy available to avoid losing money.
But you, of course, can buy on their IPO. They need every bagholder they can get :)
> Venture capitalists & private investors are sucking all of the possible growth and future upside from these companies and then dumping them on retail investors when there's nothing left.
A lot of the money that is deployed by VCs comes from pension funds and asset managers that ultimately manage money for the average Joe.
Is there any evidence of what is the share/volume of such assets involved?
If they could have gone public, they probably would have. I hope they do, their S1 might be good meme material.
Companies that reached a level of maturity where going public make sense don't keep doing funding rounds to cover the rate at which they bleed money.
So close to being the first kilocorn. A unicorn = 1 billion, this is almost 1k.
Hasn't SpaceX achieved that though?
And Saudi Aramco before they IPO'd
Kibicorn has a nicer ring to it ($1,024 billion).
Does this mean no IPO this year? What are the likely chances a company at this stage needs two rounds of funding within a year?
I wish I could invest into it, I'd at the very least have invested in their Series F. It was a no brainer by that point. If anyone could teach me how to get into stuff like this, that'd be awesome. I'm from the Netherlands, so not American. Though I'm married to an American.
Don't worry, it will be all dumped on the SP 500 as soon as it is at its hype peak.
Say you join Anthropic now as an employee. What are the chances of your equity appreciating in value? I don't think we have any historical precedents to this.
Anthropic is one of the few companies that will likely hit an infinite valuation if they succeed in their mission.
“Infinite valuation”? Give me a break.
Well presumably nobody investing in this current round expects anything less than a 3x
inflation
I suspect we'll have our first $10T company in the next 2-3 years. That's only doubling.
This is all getting a bit tiring. Show us the S1 already!
This did round involve a secondary? If yes, any data to suggest that these secondaries are leading to increased spending outside of housing and propping up the local economy?
There was a secondary sale in April.
Boys we got more subsidy for Claude Code Plans! Let the VC financed spending of 1000$ of datacenter cost for 200$ sales price continue!
great point. i haven't gotten over losing the Uber subsidy!
That announcement is a bit short on details. I suppose that, like in the previous rounds, there are some strings attached and they'll not get all of it at once.
Hynix is participating with a new circular deal. Hynix is also valued at $1 trillion now, which is positively insane.
This scam will implode harder that the housing bubble.
The circulation of money in AI is deeply troubling (NVIDIA being one of the worst I believe), either the bubble doesn’t pop and corruption like this is considered legal (self-inflating money amongst friends) or it pops and the financial hurt will be felt for a decade.
They're going to run out of letters pretty soon.
Anyone in finance should know that excel doesn't run out of letters (for columns) either. It just rolls over to AA, AB, etc.
They eventually stop, Excel has a max column size of 16,384. Not sure what letter combo that would be (ZZZZZZZZZZ or something?), but it does eventually halt.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/excel-specificati...
I'll have some of that joint they be smokin'
/s
nice, that's another 4 years of spacex data center usage runway!
Revenue up to $47B. Looking forward to the Ed Zitron hot take on this one! No doubt he will fling more baseless accusations of fraud and other nonsense.
Unless you have access to Anthropics book your claim is as baseless as Ed Zitron's ...
*run-rate revenue
Without more information, this number is impossible to interpret.
This has become a meme which is way out over its skis. Yes, run-rate is not the complete story, but "impossible to interpret" is way overstating the case.
With all that revenue, while being the most expensive model, they are still unprofitable without trickery.
This really doesn't paint the good picture you seem to imply.
What do they then need another $65B for? To sell 200$ plans that cost them 1000$ to fullfill.
I can have $47B in revenue if I sell something that cost $80B to produce ez pz.
Revenue is not profit.
This is likely the last fund raise before going public.
You can't spell Anthropic or OpenAI without "IPO". You can remove the "c" in anthropic, reverse it and the first 3 letters is "ipo".
But you certainly can spell both of them without "AGI".
Therefore, "AGI" is a complete scam and it actually was meant to be a giant IPO.
you also can't write openai without a pen
Airtight logic
Some new form of mystic numerology/gematria-based investment logic?
I think your conclusion might be right that AGI does just feel a bunch of hype but the reasoning in middle feels flawed...
like how 13^2=169 and 31^2=961 or 10^2+11^2+12^2=13^2+14^2
9k karma, whew