Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonw | Hacker News Reader

I'm confused.

The numbers that Reuters describe in this article were entirely for 2025.

It's been well documented that Anthropic's revenue growth in 2026 has been enormous. This was the year of coding agents, and tokenmaxxing, and companies blowing enormous amounts of money on AI thanks to coding agent users spending hundreds (or thousands) of dollars a day.

Given that, I don't understand why the article and the headline are based exclusively on those 2025 numbers, with not so much as a hint to the reader that there are figures from the past 9 months that aren't covered by the documents Reuters saw.

Losing $8bn in 2025 isn't particularly notable if you've made ~10x that amount of revenue in 2026.

(How much did they lose in 2026? Wouldn't we love to know that!)

Is this just a thing with leaked IPO prospectuses and coverage of them?

View on HN

You know the losses increased even more massively or Anthropic itself would have leaked the number already...

Most interesting: "Anthropic said nearly a quarter of its revenue came from two customers last year, and as part of its risk factors, warned that many of its largest clients were not locked into long-term contracts and could cut or stop spending."

But that was in 2025. It's not surprising to hear that in 2025 they had two customers responsible for a quarter of their revenue (those companies were Cursor and GitHub Copilot btw) - they hadn't yet sold Claude Code packages to vast numbers of large companies.

    >It's been well documented that Anthropic's revenue growth in 2026 has been enormous.

Has it? Don't they just self-leak/press release 'ARR' revenue claims? Has there been any audited and formal filings? Including all the off-balance sheet and other creative stuff

Trust me bro ... enormous ... and we are going to destroy the human race too.

...definitely!

We've also heard plenty of stories from companies like Uber about a need to set a limit on their token spending because they were spending so much on Anthropic. That's a solid sign that the revenue numbers are real.

It's a solid sign the numbers are not real...

What Uber and other companies said is that the money they spent didn't generate the expected value they were promised. If it had generated $2 for every $1 spent, then Uber would be spending with no limits.

The lack of demonstrable return on investment means there is a ceiling to the market size, and profit is capped as cheaper models and self hosted open source models limit the amount flagship models can charge.

Long way to go till market saturation though so they will grow for foreseeable, but its a quandary of how much they spend on R&D vs giving future shareholders dividends.

If Uber think there's no ROI, why do they allow each of their employees to spend $1,500 per month per tool?

Shouldn't they have set that per-employee budget to zero instead?

(I dug up the original source for that Uber doubts the ROI story a few months ago, it's a lot weaker than the headlines about it suggested: https://simonwillison.net/2026/May/27/product-market-fit/#th...)

I didn't mean 'no ROI', clearly AI is a productivity boost.

For the AI companies to IPO at the money they want, they have to promise that they are going to be worth many multiples more of that value.

But currently they are spending hundreds of billions and despite this their models are not light years ahead of each other, or of the companies with much lower budgets and compute power.

What they claim they can offer in future profits is subject to considerable debate.

It's in the interests of VC's and their underlying rich investors to hype it ip, IPO and bank the cold hard cash.

Yeah, I agree with all of that.

If Uber caps employee AI spend at $1500, then they've just admitted per employee AI spend on par with premium health care or commercial rent both in the 1000-1500 range, and this limited to just technical employees, i.e. subsect so presumably AI as % of business cost even lower. Health insurance 1T industry... commercial RE like 100 billion...

Anthropic thinks it's worth more than insuring all US workers AND putting roof over their heads. AI sector thinks its worth magnitude more in aggregate. If they fully displace people, i.e. untied to headcount eventually then sure, but if not, based on what Uber pays, AI is basically worth as much as insurance.

Simon you're really going to need to float the numbers for us if you're going to make claims about enormous revenue. And don't forget to include things like cost of revenue as well !

I assembled some of those numbers in May, when they claimed they had grown from $9bn in annualized revenue in December 2025 to $47bn in early May. https://simonwillison.net/2026/May/29/anthropic/

Since then they've reported $65bn in annualized revenue by July: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Aug/23/anthropics-best-ai-mod...

And sure, they might be lying about those figures - but if they are, that's investor fraud, and they'll be in hot water with the SEC when they try to IPO. I don't think they are lying about the figures.

If I had numbers on their cost of revenue I would share those. As it stands I'm going to have to wait for either more leaks or their S-1.

> It's been well documented that Anthropic's revenue growth in 2026 has been enormous.

By whom, exactly?

Every half-respectable programmer has at least the pro subscription.

What for, exactly?

Primarily forgetting how to be a half-respectable programmer.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/17/anthropic-says-annualized-re...

https://www.reuters.com/technology/anthropic-revenue-run-rat...

> annualized revenue run rate

This isn't a standardized metric like GAAP revenue, and the company chooses how to compute it. Nothing stops them from taking a strong month (or week, or day, or hell even a second of revenue) and multiplying it out. It's also a different thing from booked revenue: the prospectus shows about $4.6B recognized in 2025, versus a ~$9B run rate at year-end.

Even taken at face value, it tells us nothing about costs. In 2025 they lost about $8B operating on $4.6B revenue, with compute alone at $7.3B. The $42B net loss is inflated by a ~$34B non-cash charge, so I'm ignoring that. The company says it hit positive adjusted operating income in Q2, but that's their own number, "adjusted" excludes whatever they choose such as training costs or the cost of staff, and we won't know the real picture until the full S-1 is public. Meanwhile they've disclosed $518B in future compute and infrastructure commitments against ~$20B in cash.

If they had a trillion dollars worth of revenue, it wouldn't mean jack shit if they had a trillion + 1 in losses.

> If they had a trillion dollars worth of revenue, it wouldn't mean jack shit if they had a trillion + 1 in losses.

I don't understand that argument.

If a company has a trillion dollars in revenue, even if they are losing money hand-over-fist, that still means they have convinced other companies to cough up a trillion dollars for what they are selling. That's a big deal!

The only case that isn't impressive is if they are literally selling dollar bills for 90 cents.

You can argue that Anthropic are subsidizing their tokens all you want, but since as a customer you can't just turn around and sell a token yourself for more than you paid for it that's still not a good argument for dismissing the amount people are willing to spend.

Presumably the expenses would also be higher in 2026 as well, because inference costs scale with usage and I think training their new large models would be in there as well.

I’m not sure “presumption” is a valid methodology to evaluate a company’s performance.

What methodology would you propose given the available information?

Gather more information before coming to a conclusion. Otherwise, do not jump to a conclusion prematurely.

Let me offer an alternative: logical reasoning.

1. Increased revenue normally means increased usage. [We don't dispute that, right?]

2. Increased usage normally means increased cost.

3. There is an exception to 2: if Anthropic made a gigantic discovery and was able to reduce the cost while increasing the usage - but since it would be in their best interests, they would announce this information and brag about it for months, but they haven't (what they do is just playing the quantization game all labs do, but this is beside the point).

4. Hence, we have very solid reasons to assume their costs increased.

https://www.anthropic.com/claude-opus-5-5

"Opus 5.5 requires less compute to serve than Opus 5, and its pricing reflects that. Our tests show that at default settings it will cost 40% less than Opus 5 on typical workloads."

https://www.anthropic.com/claude-sonnet-5-5

"Sonnet 5.5 requires fewer tokens per task than Sonnet 5, so it’s less expensive to run. It also generates output 30%+ faster"

OpenAI have been achieving even more impressive optimizations, hence why GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna are half the price of their 5.6 equivalents.

Thank you, Simon :-)

That's not a presumption, he was just being polite. It is guaranteed that inference costs increased. Unless you believe that model efficiency improvements were able to offset the entire growth of agent usage in this year, which I suppose is technically possible although it would be a truly remarkable achievement.

We know inference costs scale with usage. Unless they found a way to make it much more efficient (which is possible). I think it's a fair presumption.

That was my question too. 2025 is really old in AI-company time. But I'm suspecting the "leak" was on purpose so they can now come and show how much better (but still not great) the first half of 2026 was.

Reuters probably saving 2026 for another writeup. To be honest, this is nothing surprising for 2025. I think we all expected unsurmountable costs. AI has always been and still is a huge bet into the future. The future is not written.

Not including Q1 and Q2 numbers sounds like a hit piece.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com