Exclusive-Anthropic hits $3 billion in annualized revenue on business demand for AI
SAN FRANCISCO :Artificial intelligence developer Anthropic is making about $3 billion in annualized revenue, according to two sources familiar with the matter, in an early validation of generative AI use in the business world.
The milestone, which projects the company's current sales over the course of a year, is a significant jump from December 2024 when the metric was nearly $1 billion, the sources said. The figure crossed $2 billion around the end of March, and at May's end it hit $3 billion, one of the sources said.
While consumers have embraced rival OpenAI's ChatGPT, a number of enterprises have limited their rollouts to experimentation, despite board-level interest in AI. Anthropic's revenue surge, largely from selling AI models as a service to other companies, is a data point showing how business demand is growing, one of the sources said.
A key driver is code generation. The San Francisco-based startup, backed by Google parent Alphabet and Amazon.com, is famous for AI that excels at computer programming. Products in the so-called codegen space have experienced major growth and adoption in recent months, often drawing on Anthropic's models.
This demand is setting Anthropic apart among software-as-a-service vendors. Its single-quarter revenue increases would count Anthropic as the fastest-growing SaaS company that at least one venture capitalist has ever seen.
"We've looked at the IPOs of over 200 public software companies, and this growth rate has never happened," said Meritech General Partner Alex Clayton, who is not an Anthropic investor and has no inside knowledge of its sales.
He cautioned that these comparisons are not fully precise, since Anthropic also has consumer revenue via subscriptions to its Claude chatbot. Still, by contrast, publicly traded SaaS company Snowflake took six quarters to go from $1 billion to $2 billion in such run-rate revenue, Clayton said.
Anthropic competitor OpenAI has projected it will end 2025 with more than $12 billion in total revenue, up from $3.7 billion last year, three people familiar with the matter said. This total revenue is different from an estimated annualized figure like Anthropic's. Reuters could not determine this metric for OpenAI.
The two rivals appear to be establishing their own swim lanes. While both offer enterprise and consumer products, OpenAI is shaping up to be a consumer-oriented company, and the majority of its revenue comes from subscriptions to its ChatGPT chatbot, OpenAI Chief Financial Officer Sarah Friar told Bloomberg late last year.
OpenAI has not reported enterprise-specific revenue but said in May that paying seats for its ChatGPT enterprise product have grown to 3 million, from 2 million in February, and that T-Mobile and Morgan Stanley are among its enterprise customers.
In the consumer race, Anthropic's Claude has seen less adoption than OpenAI. Claude's traffic, a proxy for consumer interest, was about 2 per cent of ChatGPT's in April, according to Web analytics firm Similarweb.
Anthropic, founded in 2021 by a team that departed OpenAI over differences in vision, closed a $3.5 billion fundraise earlier this year. That valued the company at $61.4 billion. OpenAI is currently valued at $300 billion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
6 hours ago
- CNA
Commentary: Don't be fooled by GenAI financial advisers
NEW YORK: The wealth management industry is prepared to court its newest potential clients: Gen Z. Instead of trotting out older professionals with decades of experience, companies are utilising generative AI to develop digital assistants. These new 'experts' even come with the ability to use slang to appear relatable and relevant to their target demographic. Embracing the newest technology is yet another cultural shift in the financial services landscape that disrupts some of the norms in the industry. We've seen it with the development of robo-advisers and the rise of ' finfluencers '. Cue the traditionalists turning their noses up at how far the financial advice field has strayed from its origins. After all, future iterations of GenAI really could accelerate the long-prophesied doomsday for flesh-and-blood financial planners. IMPROVING SOFT SKILLS But now isn't the time for humans to declare defeat. Until advanced versions of the technology arrive, people should be doubling down on the one significant advantage they have against their digital counterparts: soft skills. Providing investing advice is only one facet of the job. The role is part therapist, accountability coach and teacher. Real people can push back against panicked requests to sell in a turbulent market instead of simply executing an order. A person understands how and when to ask more questions to determine the reason behind a request for conservative investments such as bonds, even at a young age when it's detrimental to be overly cautious. The problem for many young adults is that accessing this more holistic approach, which goes beyond stats and data, is costly. Financial advisers usually get paid in one of two ways: assets under management (AUM) – a percentage of a customer's investments each year – or a flat-rate fee. The latter varies based on the level of service. A comprehensive financial plan can cost thousands of dollars. AUM ranges from 0.25 per cent to 1.5 per cent, with some advisers reducing the cost as the size of a portfolio grows. LOWER BARRIERS TO ENTRY The greater barrier to entry is the possible minimum investable assets requirement, which often hovers between US$500,000 and US$1 million. Fifteen years ago, these factors prohibited access for millennials. This reality paved the way for cost-effective alternatives in the form of robo-advisers, such as Betterment and Wealthfront, with significantly lower AUM and no asset minimums. The companies sent shockwaves through the industry as many wondered if machines would finally usurp man. As years passed, it became obvious the two could have a symbiotic relationship. In fact, it turned out millennials ultimately did crave some soft skills, which led to platforms launching versions that gave customers access to humans. Instead of cratering the industry, the robo-advisers forced their living counterparts to compete in different ways. Some diversified their services, including offering virtual counsel, and others targeted less-affluent clientele. While it's easy for the regular consumer to conflate a robo-adviser with GenAI, the two are not the same. The latter is built on language-learning models instead of the mathematical-centric AI models and machine-learning algorithms that provide the underpinnings for companies like Betterment and Wealthfront. Gen Z investors may be more attracted to GenAI because it can simulate how people speak and even look. Plus, the cohort is more primed to be early adopters of the tool. They've grown used to receiving free, one-size-fits-all money guidance online. FALLIBLE TECHNOLOGY A stunning 77 per cent of teens and 20-somethings use online platforms and social media to answer their money questions, according to a 2025 Credit Karma survey. But they should remember that the technology's modern iteration is new and, like humans, fallible, which results in inaccurate or misleading information known as 'hallucinations.' Even with all these issues to resolve, companies are bullish on GenAI's ability to spit out 24/7 guidance and woo new clients. Arta Finance, a wealth management startup, is at the forefront of providing an AI financial adviser with Arta AI. The 'AI agents', as the company refers to its investment planner, product specialist, and research analyst offerings, can respond to queries by voice or text (and do so in the aforementioned generationally-appropriate slang). Arta is only available to accredited investors and offers access to human professionals, but the company plans to make Arta AI available to other financial services companies. A move that could give all kinds of retail investors access to its product. It's likely that plenty of platforms won't wait to license the service and instead will develop their own. A HUGE PITFALL Robinhood Markets plans to launch Robinhood Cortex, an AI-powered digital research assistant, this fall. The app offers a variety of investing options, including Robinhood Strategies, the company's robo-adviser. Unlike Arta Finance's offering of real-life advisers alongside its AI agents, Robinhood customers can currently only access a support team, which is mostly available to handle administrative questions. And that's a huge pitfall. Companies that don't prioritise establishing relationships with real professionals can cause retail investors to panic in turbulent times, especially novice ones who are able to access advanced opportunities, such as trading options. Granting inexperienced customers access to higher-level investing products without proper support can be financially, mentally and emotionally ruinous. Robinhood should know. In 2020, it paid the largest Financial Industry Regulatory Authority fine in history – US$70 million – for its technical outages, lack of due diligence before approving customers to trade options and sending of misleading information.
CNA
12 hours ago
- CNA
Google says it will appeal online search antitrust decision
Alphabet's Google on Saturday said it will appeal an antitrust decision under which a federal judge proposed less aggressive ways to restore online search competition than the 10-year regime suggested by antitrust enforcers "We will wait for the Court's opinion. And we still strongly believe the Court's original decision was wrong, and look forward to our eventual appeal," Google said in a post on X. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington heard closing arguments on Friday at a trial on proposals to address Google's illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising. In April, a federal judge said that Google illegally dominated two markets for online advertising technology, with the U.S. Department of Justice saying that Google should sell off at least its Google Ad Manager, which includes the company's publisher ad server and its ad exchange. The DOJ and a coalition of states want Google to share search data and cease multibillion-dollar payments to Apple and other smartphone makers to be the default search engine on new devices. Antitrust enforcers are concerned about how Google's search monopoly gives it an advantage in artificial intelligence products like Gemini and vice versa. John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, said at the hearing that while generative AI is influencing how search looks, Google has addressed any concerns about competition in AI by no longer entering exclusive agreements with wireless carriers and smartphone makers including Samsung Electronics, leaving them free to load rival search and AI apps on new devices.
CNA
14 hours ago
- CNA
Somebody that I used to know: On the weird grief of colleague departures
This question has become part of my awkward welcome ritual for new hires: 'So ... are you a coffee person?' Day one usually begins at the cafe downstairs with a quick hello, a commemorative libation (coffee or otherwise), then a climb up the stairs to commence our journey as co-workers. Over the past decade of running my company, I've continued to personally onboard new workers. It's not that I can't trust someone else to do it. I just really enjoy it. I like showing them our 'designated crying area' (our pantry space) and explaining the curious phenomenon of the office bidet geyser. I like going through our culture deck, throwing in a few jokes to break the ice and seeing them decide how heartily they should laugh. It's orientation, yes, but also something more – a quiet hope that if you make them feel welcome and you remember their coffee order, they might stay a little longer. Then they leave. Sometimes after three years, sometimes three months. Sometimes on a good note, sometimes a strained one. And in that abrupt silence that follows, between offboarding checklists and looking at handover documents, I find myself wondering if any of these efforts were worth it. WON'T YOU STAY WITH ME? About a decade ago, the first person that I hired when I started the company decided to make a jump to a much bigger, more prestigious agency. It was a competitor but it paid her better and had a much more conducive structure for her career development. It made sense for her. We parted on good terms, but it was hard to maintain the same friendship once we no longer shared the day-to-day routines. Even seeing her career milestones pop up on social media triggered a small wave of disappointment – not at her, but at myself. It was insecurity and a bit of resentment all wrapped up in a forced double-tap of the 'like' button. We didn't speak for a long time. Only after a good five years had passed could we both approach the situation with some perspective and humour. Thankfully, we're now friendly again. This isn't a story about attrition rates or talent migration. It's about the emotional tax of investing in people who eventually walk away. No one tells you, when you first become a manager, that the job requires a strange kind of short-term memory. You pour time into someone, build a rhythm, start speaking in shared references and inside jokes – and then, poof, they're gone. Off to bigger things and better pay. The relationship seems to end abruptly there, apart from the occasional LinkedIn sightings. I know that's just the way the cookie crumbles. The workplace today is a revolving door of industry pivots, mental health breaks and career realignments. Everyone's chasing something – balance, purpose, remuneration, title and so on – and it's unlikely that staying in one place can offer everything. Still, why do I feel a small sting every time someone leaves? SOMEBODY THAT I USED TO KNOW I'll be honest. I still find it difficult not to take departures from the company personally. Not in a dramatic, weeping-in-the-toilet way, but in those smaller moments. When a photo of a past team outing pops up on social media, in a photo album or the memories in your head. Or when you retrieve an old presentation deck and you see the names tagged in the slides. Certainly not because they're wrong to go but maybe it's because, for a brief window of time, I had imagined a future where we'd keep building something together. This emotional dilemma isn't exclusive to managers and supervisors. The departure I've taken the hardest happened when I was still a junior executive, in the infancy of my career. At the time, I was part of a desk cluster with a senior who wasn't my direct boss, but who had become a de facto mentor. Christopher was soft-spoken, serious and a little stoic, but he always humoured my terrible puns. We'd often sneak off for 'planning sessions' at the canteen that had very little to do with planning. We talked about movies, music, family – the kind of conversations that anchor you during chaotic work days. One afternoon, Christopher told me that the following week would be his last with the company. He'd found a better opportunity elsewhere. In the 2002 Hong Kong movie Infernal Affairs, there's a pivotal scene where Tony Leung, playing an undercover police officer, watches the only person who knows his true identity get killed. The camera lingers on his expression of shock and horror and this remains one of the strongest gut punches in cinematic history. On that day when Christopher told me the news, my expression would've made Tony's look mild at best. 'Oh. Congrats, Chris!' I managed to say. 'Happy for you.' Two weeks later at his cleaned-out desk, I shook his hand and said all the right things: 'Let's keep in touch. Don't be a stranger.' What I couldn't shake was the strange sense of grief and futility. What would be the point of keeping in touch if we no longer worked together? FRIENDS ARE FRIENDS … FOREVER? What is 'workplace culture'? We like to talk about it in terms of values and vision statements, but most of it comes down to the people. It is who you sit next to, the person who replies with a meme instead of a boring thumbs-up, the one who makes the 5pm slump bearable. So when they leave, it isn't just another email from the human resource department. It's a permanent glitch in your work day. Conventional business wisdom dictates that investing in people is never a waste, even when they might come and go – because people are the most valuable assets of any company. I've echoed those things. I even genuinely believe them. But there's another truth, too: that what isn't a waste can still sometimes feel like one regardless. It's only human of us to feel something, especially after we've poured hours into someone – coaching, giving feedback, having conversations over coffee and bubble tea – only to have them resign right when they finally started getting it. Maybe it is not quite bitterness but certainly, there is a sense of jadedness. The kind that makes you want to pull back with the next person, just a little. Don't get too attached. Don't ask about their weekend or their interests. Don't joke too much. Here's the catch: If you stop investing in your people earnestly and genuinely, you will slowly become the kind of manager you swore you'd never be. Transactional. Coldly efficient. Checked out. And ironically, that's exactly the kind of environment people want to leave. So I will keep trying, even when the farewell Slack message reads like a LinkedIn boilerplate. I will keep hoping that somewhere along the way, the time we spent together meant something. That, in between rushed deadlines and Monday check-ins, we managed to become more than just colleagues ticking boxes on a task list. Maybe that's the point – to make the workplace not just somewhere people pass through, but somewhere they felt seen, where they felt real connection, even if briefly. I love how Andy Bernard movingly puts it in the series finale of American sitcom The Office: "I wish there was a way to know you're in the good old days before you've actually left them." The real treasure, as they say, might just be the friends we made along the way.
