Anthropic and OpenAI revenue run rates are not comparable, because they count cloud sales differently

The question of whether Anthropic's revenue is bigger than OpenAI's has a headline answer and an honest answer, and they differ. The headline answer is that Anthropic passed a $65 billion annualized run rate at the end of July while OpenAI told investors it was approaching $50 billion at the end of September. The honest answer is that the two companies do not count the same thing, and the comparison is worth far less than it looks.

The numbers on the table

Reuters reported on August 17, 2026 that Anthropic's annualized revenue run rate topped $65 billion by the end of July, citing a person familiar with the matter; Anthropic declined to comment, per TNW's account the next day. TNW noted that the run rate was about $9 billion at the end of 2025 and about $47 billion in May, and that preliminary second quarter revenue of more than $11.5 billion works out to roughly a $46 billion annualized pace.

OpenAI's picture moved this week. TNW's October 9 roundup says the Financial Times reported on October 8 that OpenAI's run rate was approaching $50 billion at the end of September, about $20 billion below an earlier figure near $70 billion. The FT said the $70 billion number came from "attempts by OpenAI's own investors to produce a direct comparison" with Anthropic. The Information reported that OpenAI told investors the run rate was approaching $50 billion and that CFO Sarah Friar had said it grew 70% from the end of June to the end of September. Bloomberg reported on October 9 that OpenAI expects $70 billion or more by year end.

A run rate is not revenue. It takes a recent short period, often one month, and multiplies it by twelve. As TNW's Alina Maria Stan put it in August: "$65bn is a run rate, not a receipt."

Gross versus net

The structural difference is how each company books sales made through cloud partners such as Amazon Web Services, Google and Microsoft. According to reporting by Semafor, which cited The Information, on a $1 token purchase through a cloud partner OpenAI counts its 20 cent cut as revenue while Anthropic counts the full $1. TNW's October 9 summary says the same: Anthropic counts the gross amount of certain cloud partner sales, while OpenAI counts only its share, generally including the 20% it shares with Microsoft.

Neither treatment is wrong. They answer different questions: gross shows how much customers spend on a company's models, net shows what the company keeps. The problem is putting them in one league table. In April, one person familiar with the numbers told Semafor that moving OpenAI to the gross basis would raise its annualized revenue by up to $8 billion. That figure is old and anonymous, and it was never updated in anything we could open this week.

What the market did

The confusion reached the tape. CNN, as relayed by TNW, reported that the Nasdaq Composite fell 1.25% on Thursday, October 8, after the FT report, its worst day since mid-August, with Oracle down 5.5% and Nvidia down 2.9%. We cannot say how much of that was the revenue story, and CNN does not claim to. What it shows is that the numbers are moving prices well before anyone has audited them.

What an audit will change

Neither company has filed audited figures we could open. Anthropic's own announcement says it "confidentially submitted a draft registration statement on Form S-1" on June 1, 2026, and the page contains no revenue figures. Public prospectus numbers, when they arrive, will use one set of accounting rules for one company. They will not settle the comparison either, because OpenAI is not yet filed, and has ruled out a listing this year, per Bloomberg as relayed by TNW.

The prospectus leak from late September gave a first look at Anthropic's income statement, and our coverage of the Anthropic IPO delay and one research firm's much lower valuation shows how far apart outsiders already are on what the numbers mean. For the wider picture of revenue and capital spending across the leading labs, see our summary of the State of AI Report.

What would make the comparison fair

Three things would turn the gap into something a reader can use:

• Both companies reporting on the same basis, ideally with gross and net shown side by side.
• Run rates replaced by reported quarterly revenue, which Reuters says showed Anthropic ahead in Q2 at $11.5 billion against $6.7 billion.
• A disclosure of how much of each company's revenue comes through partners rather than direct.

What readers should do with run rates

Use run rates for direction, not for rank. Ask which basis is used, gross or net. Ask which month is annualized, because one strong month looks very different from a quarter. And remember who is talking: these figures reached the press through investor materials and anonymous sources while both companies were courting capital. TNW's Anthropic report makes the same point, noting that figures shared with investors during an IPO run-up are part of a pitch.

Our take

Anthropic is very likely growing faster in absolute dollars, and no source we opened disputes the direction. What the evidence does not support is a precise gap. A $65 billion gross run rate and a $50 billion net run rate are different measurements, and the investor-built $70 billion number shows how easily a rumor becomes a headline.

We would treat every run rate quoted this autumn as a pitch until a prospectus says otherwise, and we would read the first audited quarter from either company before crowning anyone.