Hacker News Reader

Comment by sigmoid10 | Hacker News Reader

Anthropic is in a bit of a rough spot if you look at the raw data points we have available. Their valuation is in the same order of magnitude as OpenAI, but they have orders of magnitude fewer users. And current leaderboards for famous unsolved benchmarks like ARC AGI and HLE are also dominated by Google and OpenAI. Announcements like the one you linked are the only way for Anthropic to stay in the news cycle and justify its valuation to investors. Their IPO rumours are yet another example of this. But I really wonder how long that strategy can keep working.

View on HN

Those benchmarks mean nothing. Anthropic still makes the models that gets real work done in enterprise. We want to move but are unable to.

If anyone disagrees,I would like to see their long running deep research agents built on gemini or openai.

I have built several agents based on OpenAI now that are running real life business tasks. OpenAI's tool calling integration still beats everyone else (in fact it did from the very beginning), which is what actually matters in real world business applications. And even if some small group of people prefer Anthropic for very specific tasks, the numbers are simply unfathomable. Their business strategy has zero chance of working long-term.

In writing code, from what I've seen, Anthropic's models are still the most widely used. I would venture that over 50% of vibe coded apps, garbage though they are, are written by Claude Code. And they capture the most market in real coding shops as well, from what I've seen.

What data are you basing your assumption on? OpenRouter? That itself is only used by a tiny fraction of people. According to the latest available numbers, OpenAI has ~800x more monthly active users than OpenRouter. So even if only 0.5% of them use it for code, it will dwarf everything that Anthropic's models produce.

Just out of interest, why do you want to move? What's wrong with Claude and Anthropic in your view? (I use it, and it works really well.)

> Their valuation is in the same order of magnitude as OpenAI, but they have orders of magnitude fewer users.

it's an open question how many of OpenAI's users are monetizable.

There's an argument to be made that your brand being what the general public identifies with AI is a medium term liability in light of the vast capital and operating costs involved.

It may well be that Anthropic focusing on an order of magnitudes smaller, but immediately monetiazable market will play out better.

I wouldn't count on it being immediately monetizable. At least not to the point where training foundation models becomes fundamentally profitable. And from what we're seeing right now, you have to do that or you will get left behind fast. But with a billion active users, you are approaching Facebook levels of market penetration and thereby advertising-potential. So in the mid to long term, this is certainly more valuable.

Low scores on HLE and ARC AGI might be a good sign. They didn't goodhart their models. ARG AGI in particular doesn't mean much, IMO. It's just some weird hard geometry induction. I don't think it correlates well with real world problem solving.

AFAICT, claude code is the biggest engineering mind share. An apple software engineer of mine says he sometimes uses $100/day of claude code tokens at work and gets sad, because that's the budget.

Also, look at costs and revenue. OpenAI is bleeding way more than Antropic.

Not sure how relevant it is, but I finally decided to dip my toes in last night and write my first agent. Despite paying for ChatGPT Pro, Claude Pro, etc, you still have to load up credits to use the API version of them. I started with Claude, but there was a bug on the add credit form and I couldn't submit (I'm guessing they didn't test on MacOS Safari, maybe?). So I gave up and moved on to OpenAI's developer thing.

Maybe they should do less vibe coding on their checkout flow and they might have more users.

Anthropic has less users, but I think their value per user is higher due to claude mostly producing code. I know my shop is just gonna keep paying for $200 max subscriptions until one of these open source clients with a chinese LLM can beat sonnet 4.5 (which may be now, but not worth it for me to explore until its solid enough for my uses)

Hard to believe you could be so misinformed. Anthropic is not far behind OAI on revenue and has a much more stable position with most of it coming from enterprise/business customers.

I’d argue openAI has put their cards on the table and they don’t have anything special, while Anthropic has not.

Their valuations come from completely different calculus: Anthropic looks much more like a high potential early startup still going after PMF while OpenAI looks more like a series B flailing to monetize.

The cutting edge has largely moved past benchmarks, beyond a certain performance threshold that all these models have reached, nobody really cares about scores anymore, except people overfitting to them. They’re going for models that users like better, and Claude has a very loyal following.

TLDR, OpenAI has already peaked, Anthropic hasn’t, this the valuation difference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com