OpenAI’s annualised revenue run rate may be about $50bn, rather than the $70bn widely reported for September, according to a Financial Times account cited by Silicon UK. The difference appears to involve how revenue is counted, a distinction with consequences for judging the AI boom’s growth and the infrastructure spending built around it.
OpenAI Watch analysis
What happened
The FT report, based on financial documents shared with investors and a person familiar with the matter, says OpenAI’s investors presented a more directly comparable view of revenue after accounting for differences between OpenAI and Anthropic. On that basis, OpenAI’s run rate was around $30bn in July and about $50bn at the end of September, Silicon UK reports.
Those figures are annualised run rates, not a disclosed tally of audited revenue. Earlier reports had put the September figure at $70bn. The discrepancy does not erase the reported growth: the article says the new figures still show OpenAI’s run rate roughly tripling by July compared with the $10bn annualised figure the company disclosed in June last year.
The accounting difference concerns cloud marketplaces. The article says Anthropic counts the full value of marketplace contracts as revenue and records the platforms’ share as a marketing cost. OpenAI says that approach inflates Anthropic’s revenue by billions; Anthropic says it follows established accounting practices. These are the companies’ positions as reported, not a settled verdict on which presentation is preferable.
Why it matters
Revenue run rates help investors and the wider industry estimate how quickly demand for AI services is growing. A $20bn gap between reported estimates is large enough to change that picture, especially when enormous computing and infrastructure commitments are being made against expectations of continued growth.
It is also a reminder that headline revenue comparisons can hinge on accounting choices as well as sales. The figures are still striking, but comparing OpenAI and Anthropic requires care: a run rate is not the same as audited revenue, and apparently similar numbers may not be counted on the same basis.
Our read
This is a meaningful correction to the scale of the figures being circulated, not proof that OpenAI’s growth has stalled. The reported run rate remains substantial, and the company’s investors appear to be trying to make comparisons more like-for-like. That is useful. It also leaves readers wanting clearer definitions before treating rival revenue headlines as a league table.
What to watch
- Whether OpenAI or its investors publish a fuller explanation of the revised figures and accounting basis.
- Whether Anthropic responds further to the comparison of marketplace revenue treatment.
- How investors and analysts adjust AI growth and infrastructure-spending estimates.
Discussion spark: When AI companies count marketplace revenue differently, should investors compare headline run rates at all, or wait for a common accounting basis?
Sources and evidence
- Source update (12 October 2026, 07:00 UTC)
OpenAI Watch is independently operated by WittyWires. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or operated by OpenAI.