OpenAI annualised revenues $20bn less than previously signalled

OpenAI’s annualized revenue is approaching $50 billion, around $20 billion below the $70 billion figure reported by several media outlets in late September, according to a Financial Times report published on October 8, 2026. The ChatGPT maker reportedly shared the lower figure with investors in financial documents, prompting fresh questions about how its revenue is calculated and how quickly demand for artificial intelligence services is expanding. Reuters reported the discrepancy but said it could not independently verify the Financial Times report. OpenAI did not immediately respond to Reuters’ request for comment.

The gap comes at a time when OpenAI is investing heavily in computing infrastructure and competing with Anthropic, Google, Meta and other AI developers. It also reflects a difference in revenue-reporting methods: Anthropic includes certain sales made through cloud partners such as Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud in its reported revenue, while OpenAI excludes those partner sales from its own calculation. The distinction complicates direct comparisons between the two companies and has become important for investors assessing the sustainability of the AI investment boom.

OpenAI’s Revenue Run Rate Reaches Nearly $50 Billion

According to the Financial Times, OpenAI told investors that its annualized revenue was approaching $50 billion at the end of September 2026. This was significantly below the $70 billion figure that had circulated in reports during the previous month.

The discrepancy does not necessarily mean OpenAI’s revenue suddenly declined. Instead, the two figures appear to reflect different approaches to measuring revenue, particularly when comparing sales made directly by an AI company with those made through cloud distribution partners.

The FT reported that OpenAI’s annualized revenue was close to $30 billion in July. The company subsequently told investors that the figure had increased by more than 70% by the end of September, supporting a run rate of approximately $50 billion.

Revenue indicator	Reported figure
OpenAI annualized revenue at end of September 2026	Nearly $50 billion
Previously reported September figure	Approximately $70 billion
Difference between the figures	Approximately $20 billion
Reported annualized revenue in July 2026	Nearly $30 billion
Reported growth since July	More than 70%

Source: Financial Times reporting and related coverage by Reuters. These are reported annualized revenue estimates, not audited full-year revenue figures.

The distinction matters because OpenAI is a privately held company and does not publish regular public financial statements in the same way as listed corporations. Investors therefore rely on information shared by the company, funding documents and media reports to assess its financial performance.

Why the $20 Billion Revenue Gap Emerged

The reported discrepancy stems largely from efforts to compare OpenAI’s revenue directly with that of Anthropic, the developer of the Claude family of AI models.

Both companies sell AI products and services through different channels. Customers can access AI tools directly or through cloud platforms that integrate third-party models into their own services.

According to the Financial Times, Anthropic includes revenue from certain sales through cloud partners such as AWS and Google Cloud in its reported figures. OpenAI does not include those partner sales in the same way. This means the companies’ headline figures may not measure exactly the same economic activity.

Consider a simplified example: a customer pays a cloud provider $100 for access to an AI service. Depending on the commercial arrangement and accounting treatment, one company might count the full customer payment as revenue, while another might report only the amount it receives under its agreement with the partner.

The actual accounting depends on the contract and applicable accounting standards. The example illustrates why two companies can report different revenue totals even when their services reach customers through similar distribution channels.

The earlier $70 billion figure reportedly emerged from attempts by investors to adjust OpenAI’s revenue upward to make it more comparable with Anthropic’s reported run rate. The later $50 billion figure reflects OpenAI’s own reported calculation rather than that adjusted comparison.

This distinction is essential: the gap should not automatically be interpreted as $20 billion in missing sales or a sudden deterioration in customer demand.

What Annualized Revenue Actually Means

Annualized revenue, often described as an annual recurring revenue-style run rate, estimates how much revenue a company might generate over a year if its recent pace continued.

For example, if a company generated $4 billion in revenue over a three-month period, multiplying that amount by four would produce a simple annualized estimate of $16 billion.

However, annualized revenue is not the same as actual annual revenue. It assumes that the recent pace of business continues, even though customer spending, product launches, pricing and market conditions may change.

For a rapidly expanding AI company, the metric can be especially sensitive to the period selected. A month with unusually strong enterprise contracts or subscription growth may produce a different annualized figure from a quieter month.

Investors also need to distinguish between several measures:

• Recognized revenue: Revenue recorded under the applicable accounting rules for products or services delivered.
• Annualized revenue: A projection based on a recent revenue pace.
• Bookings: The value of customer contracts signed, which may be recognized as revenue over time.
• Cash flow: The actual movement of cash into and out of the business.

These measures answer different questions. A company can experience rapid revenue growth while still spending heavily on infrastructure, research and employee costs.

AI Stocks Fall as Investors Reassess Demand

The revenue report affected investor sentiment toward companies exposed to the AI infrastructure boom. On October 8, the Nasdaq 100 fell 1.4%, while Nvidia declined 2.9%, Oracle dropped 5.5% and Micron fell 4.8%, according to the Financial Times.

The reaction reflects OpenAI’s importance to the wider AI ecosystem. The company is a major buyer of computing capacity and a significant customer of technology providers involved in AI chips, cloud infrastructure and data centers.

Investors have committed substantial capital to companies expected to benefit from rising demand for AI models and applications. If revenue growth is slower than previously assumed—or if reported figures are not directly comparable—investors may reconsider how quickly infrastructure investments can generate returns.

However, the stock-market reaction does not establish that AI demand has collapsed. The revenue discrepancy appears to involve different measurement methods, and OpenAI’s reported run rate of nearly $50 billion still represents substantial growth from its July level. The figures also do not provide a complete view of the company’s profitability or future revenue trajectory.

OpenAI Faces Heavy Infrastructure Spending

OpenAI’s financial performance is closely watched because the company has made major commitments to computing power and AI infrastructure. Building and operating advanced AI models requires expensive chips, data centers, electricity and engineering resources.

The Financial Times reported that OpenAI was projecting cumulative losses approaching $280 billion by 2030 as it continues investing in infrastructure. The company is also in discussions with investors about a potential funding round that could value it at approximately $1.4 trillion. These are reported projections and fundraising discussions, not confirmed future outcomes.

The scale of these commitments makes revenue growth a critical measure for investors. Strong sales can help fund infrastructure and research, but revenue alone does not show whether the business can cover its costs or eventually generate sustainable profits.

OpenAI’s financial outlook also depends on whether businesses and consumers continue paying for AI services as competition increases. Rival models, lower-cost alternatives and changing enterprise purchasing decisions could influence both pricing and demand.

OpenAI and Anthropic Face Growing Pressure to Demonstrate Growth

The revenue comparison comes as OpenAI and Anthropic compete for enterprise customers, developers and consumer subscriptions. Both companies are seeking to establish AI services as essential tools for software development, research, customer support and business operations.

Their growth figures are increasingly important to private-market investors because they help support company valuations and expectations for future profitability.

But direct comparisons require consistent definitions. Differences in how cloud-partner sales are counted can make one company appear larger than another even when the figures cover different revenue flows.

More detailed financial disclosures would help investors assess the companies on a consistent basis, including recognized revenue, gross margins, infrastructure costs, customer concentration and cash consumption.

OpenAI has reportedly delayed its previously anticipated IPO plans amid concerns about AI development and other business risks. A future public listing, if pursued, would require a more detailed view of its financial position and risk factors for prospective investors.

The Bigger Picture

The $20 billion gap highlights a broader challenge in evaluating private AI companies: fast-growing revenue figures can attract substantial investment, but their meaning depends on how they are calculated. OpenAI’s reported run rate of nearly $50 billion remains substantial, and the company’s reported growth since July indicates that its business has continued to expand rapidly.

At the same time, the discrepancy illustrates why headline revenue estimates should not be treated as interchangeable. Different treatment of cloud-partner sales, the use of annualized figures and the absence of regular public financial reporting can complicate comparisons between AI companies. Investors must also weigh revenue growth against the enormous cost of developing and operating AI systems.

Looking Ahead

Investors will be watching for clearer financial disclosures from OpenAI and other major AI developers, particularly as they seek additional capital and consider future public-market plans. Comparable revenue definitions and more information about operating costs would help establish whether AI companies can turn rapid adoption into sustainable profitability. The next stage of competition will depend not only on model capabilities but also on customer retention, pricing and the cost of delivering AI services at scale.

For the wider technology sector, the episode is a reminder that AI infrastructure spending depends on expectations about future demand. A reporting discrepancy does not prove that those expectations are wrong, but it can prompt investors to examine the assumptions behind company valuations and chip demand. OpenAI’s reported $50 billion annualized revenue remains a significant milestone; whether it supports the scale of investment planned for the coming years will depend on how revenue and costs evolve.