Bloomberg, citing anonymous sources, reports that OpenAI’s third-quarter revenue exceeded $10 billion — the first time the company has crossed that threshold. If accurate, the figure represents nearly a 50% increase from the reported $6.7 billion in the second quarter.
Profitability and margins
The report also indicates an improvement in OpenAI’s profitability: its adjusted operating margin narrowed from -150% in Q2 to -109% in Q3. OpenAI had already shown strong top-line growth earlier in the year — growth between Q1 and Q2 was about 18% — but the jump implied by the latest figures is markedly larger.
User base and enterprise market
OpenAI’s early popularity and broad user base (the company says it has over a billion users) continue to underpin its revenue mix. However, many of those users are likely free-tier or lower-priced subscribers, which does not necessarily translate into enterprise revenue.
By contrast, Anthropic has been gaining ground in the enterprise segment: the report states Anthropic’s Q3 revenue was $17 billion, and that its annualized revenue run rate rose by $10 billion in a month to about $81 billion as of the end of October.
Annualized run rates and accounting differences
According to Bloomberg’s reporting, OpenAI’s annualized revenue run rate is now about $50 billion. It is important to note that OpenAI and Anthropic calculate annualized revenue differently: Anthropic includes sales made through its cloud partners in full, whereas OpenAI often reports only its share of partner-driven sales.
Market competition
Both companies are reporting substantial figures, but they face strong competition from models developed by Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, as well as a variety of lower-cost yet capable open-source models, including many from China. Anthropic is also reportedly aiming for an IPO that could target a $1.4 trillion valuation, a move that could further influence market dynamics.
Conclusion
Bloomberg’s sources suggest OpenAI has achieved notable revenue growth and narrower losses in the quarter, but differences in accounting methods and a rapidly evolving competitive landscape mean comparisons should be interpreted carefully.
