Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonw | Hacker News Reader

Charging developers $200/month for Claude Code and getting to a billion in ARR sounds like a pretty great business to be in to me, especially with this growth rate:

> Claude Code is reportedly close to generating $1 billion in annualized revenue, up from about $400 million in July.

https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/04/anthropic-expects-b2b-dema...

View on HN

Relative to its competitors, Anthropic seems to have a higher share of professional users paying premium subscriptions, which is probably more sustainable in the long term.

Anecdotally, a Max subscriber gets something like $100 worth of usage per day. The more people use Claude Code, the more Anthropic loses, so it sounds like a classical "selling a dollar for 85 cents" business to me.

As soon as users are confronted with their true API cost, the appearance of this being a good business falls apart. At the end of the day, there is no moat around large language models - OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, DeepSeek, Alibaba, Moonshot... any company can make a SOTA model if they wish, so in the long run it's guaranteed to be a race to the bottom where nobody can turn a profit.

> Anecdotally, a Max subscriber gets something like $100 worth of usage per day.

Where are you getting that number from?

Anthropic added quite strict limits on usage - visible from the /usage method inside Claude Code. I would be surprised if those limits turn out to still result in expensive losses for them.

This is just personal experience + reddit anecdotes. I've been using CC from day one (when API pricing was the only way to pay for CC), then I've been on the $20 Pro plan and am getting a solid $5+ worth of usage in each 5h session, times 5-10 sessions per week (so an overall 5-10x subsidy over one month.) And I extrapolated that $200 subscribers must be getting roughly 10x Pro's usage. I do feel the actual limit fluctuates each week as Claude Code engage in this new subsidy war with OAI Codex though.

My theory is this:

- we know from benchmarks that open-weight models like Deepseek R1 and Kimi K2's capabilities are not far behind SOTA GPT/Claude

- open-weight API pricing (e.g. on openrouter) is roughly 1/10~1/5 that of GPT/Claude

- users can more or less choose to hook their agent CLI/IDEs to either closed or open models

If these points are true, then the only reason people are primarily on CC & Codex plans is because they are subsidized by at least 5~10x. When confronted with true costs, users will quickly switch to the lowest inference cost vendor, and we get perfect competition + zero margin for all vendors.

The benchmarks lie. Go try coding full-time with R1 vs Codex or GPT-5 (in Codex). The latter is firmly preferred even by those who have no issue with budgeting tokens for their productivity.

So Misanthropic claims that 416666.66 software developers have bought their expensive $200 subscription when there are 4.4 million software developers in the US.

That sounds reasonable given that 10% of software developers are talkers that need someone to output something that looks like a deliverable.

We were however talking profits here, not revenue.

Presumably their "$1bn ARR from Claude Code" number isn't just the $200/month subscribers, they have $20/month and $100/month plans too, both of which their internal analytics could be crediting to Claude Code based on API usage patterns.

That $1bn number was in a paywalled Information article which was then re-reported by TechCrunch so the actual source of the number isn't clear. I'm assuming someone leaked to the Information, they appear to have some very useful sources.

I doubt this is just US developers - they've boasted about how successful they are in Europe recently too:

> Businesses across Europe are trusting Claude with their most important work. As a result, EMEA has become our fastest-growing region, with a run-rate revenue that has grown more than 9x in the past year.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/new-offices-in-paris-and-muni...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com