Top
Best
New

Posted by meetpateltech 2 hours ago

Anthropic raises $65B in Series H funding at $965B post-money valuation(www.anthropic.com)
145 points | 126 comments
cmiles8 1 hour ago|
Probably the bigger headline here is that they’ve blown past OpenAI in revenue and valuation, with OpenAI looking increasingly shaky and vulnerable.
Aurornis 1 hour ago||
Their valuations differ by about 13%. That's close enough that I wouldn't call it "blown past".

Things change fast in this space. Anthropic had a big boost from having the premier coding model for a while, but GPT-5.5 has closed that gap at a time when a lot of Anthropic customers are looking for cheaper alternatives.

Anthropic is coming off of a recent change to their enterprise billing that substantially changed the pricing for many users. They were smart to do the fundraising before the effects of that change could fully propagate.

cmiles8 1 hour ago|||
The acceleration rate has been extraordinary… they went from mostly unknown outside AI circles to the number one player almost overnight. If that’s not “blown past” I don’t know what is.
jmathai 42 minutes ago|||
The branding of Claude is so much stronger than ChatGPT. Even Anthropic is such better branding than OpenAI (especially considering they're not open at all).

My wife knows about Claude because that's what I use and we pay for. She uses it also as a result. And inevitably she will talk about Claude to her friends.

Marciplan 11 minutes ago|||
for normies it is the exact opposite.
tredre3 19 minutes ago||||
> The branding of Claude is so much stronger than ChatGPT.

Absolutely not, you live in a bubble. Everybody knows about ChatGPT.

Few non-programmers have heard of anthropic or claude, nor do they care. But they all know what ChatGPT is.

bbg2401 19 minutes ago|||
OpenAI is as open as Anthropic is anthropic.
pavlov 35 minutes ago||||
I remember seeing expensive multi-page ads for Claude in the New Yorker over a year ago.

Their marketing has been working the high end of the “regular people” market for a good while.

baal80spam 1 hour ago|||
Do ordinary people really know what Anthropic is?
__s 58 minutes ago|||
They know that "claude's the good one"
linuxftw 5 minutes ago||||
Of course not. Normal people are using gemini, it comes pre-installed on Android now.
cmiles8 56 minutes ago||||
They know the cool kids have ditched OpenAI and now use Claude
postalrat 40 minutes ago||||
They certainly know claude. I keep telling them they are all about the same.
pembrook 29 minutes ago|||
Ironically their tussle with the US federal government is what made them a household name [1]

There's no better way to create awareness of a brand than to get it featured in the most popular reality TV show globally at the moment: "Thing Trump Did: Season 2."

[1] Proof: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=... (see the massive spike in January of this year)

manquer 29 minutes ago|||
> but GPT-5.5 has closed that gap at a time when a lot of Anthropic customers are looking for cheaper alternatives.

GPT-5.5 is a bit more expensive than Opus ? Current list prices

  | Model      | Input   | Output   |
  | GPT-5.5    | $5/MTok | $30/MTok |
  | Opus 4.8/7 | $5/MTok | $25/MTok |

Deepseek perhaps would be the top threat on a pure price/performance metric for either of them. It doesn't look like OAI is going for the value play .
gruez 2 minutes ago|||
Comparing $/MTokfor models makes as much sense as comparing $/ghz for CPUs. Models have different tokenizers and take varying number of "thinking" to get to a solution. A far better proxy is how much it takes to do a run, which takes all of that into account. Such metrics are much harder to gather, but once source claims $3357 for gpt-5.5 vs $4686 for opus, the opposite of your conclusion.

https://artificialanalysis.ai/?cost=intelligence-vs-cost

Spartan-S63 2 minutes ago|||
Most variants of GPT-5.5 are less chatty and token-intensive than Opus 4.8/4.7, so despite the output token price being higher, it generates fewer tokens, so the net cost is lower.

Per-token pricing is totally sensible from the provider-perspective on mapping COGS to revenue, but for a consumer, different models will produce more or less tokens, meaning the cost calculation is multi-dimensional.

alecco 1 hour ago|||
Anthropic is at the mercy of 3rd party datacenter contracts. AFAIK OpenAI will soon run mostly on on their own GPUs.

I don't like Altman and I am still upset about his memory deal last year but he prepared for the current shortages months before anybody else. Meanwhile, Anthropic seems to lack any plans besides third party contracting. IMHO they got very lucky with xAI and Google having spare capacity and willing to rent it. But what about next year?

llm_nerd 47 seconds ago|||
>Anthropic is at the mercy of 3rd party datacenter contracts

I mean, this is a bit like complaining that McDonalds doesn't have their own herds of cows. OpenAI actually isn't in the business of buying GPUs or running data centres, and it's pretty weird to think that's an advantage (though it comes up constantly on here, as Anthropic keeps eating OpenAI's lunch).

There are many suppliers that are desperate to fight for Anthropics business, and it has shown an agility to embrace whatever advances in the industry come along. Anthropic is now running across a million or so Google TPUv8s, for instance. If tomorrow someone else comes out with a better GPU, they can embrace it in a heartbeat.

All while OpenAI sits on their rapidly depreciating GPUs.

Or...actually they won't, because OpenAI doesn't take business advice from HN. The vast majority of OpenAI's compute is from Microsoft, Oracle and so on. They're smart enough to not become a big hardware purchaser when that isn't their business.

lumost 1 hour ago||||
Which also leaves OpenAI vulnerable to NVidia's aggressive pricing. To my knowledge Anthropic is relatively well positioned across multiple compute vendors/hardware providers.
abirch 39 minutes ago||
It also leaves OpenAI vulnerable to any GPU breakthroughs. You could imagine company X comes up with a XPU that is 100% faster than what's currently there.*

* NVidia GPU, Google TPU, Apple SoC, etc.

karmasimida 16 minutes ago|||
You have missed the point

Nvidia has probably monopolized several upstream supplies to manufacture critical chip components for next 2 years, the HBMs and Optics component from LITE, as well as TSM capacity. Let alone those power components they funded themselves.

Let's say you have a genius design, but you will have it close to impossible to compete with Nvidia in getting it to volumes.

Jensen is a player, he isn't fooling around with all these Asian trips just to wine and dine

jiveturkey 20 minutes ago|||
We are still in the short-half-life phase of GPUs. If a 2x faster GPU is on the horizon, why wouldn't OpenAI already be in line to buy? They aren't buying just 1, they are buying multiple datacenters' worth. So they wouldn't be a low priority, back of the line customer.

A short half-life means you are going to quickly dispose of what you have now, anyway. In fact most current datacenters can't even handle Vera Rubin, so I don't think there's short term risk here.

manquer 17 minutes ago||||
> their own GPUs

Everyone has critical risk on multiple parts of the supply chain. GPUs and Memory are just things OAI mitigated for.

Power - Bigger bottleneck than GPU or RAM perhaps, New Grid connected capacity is typically 10+ year timescale with lot of regulatory friction. Captive capacity is also quite constrained - now Gas turbines have 7+ year wait time.

There are plenty of hard constraints that OAI cannot easily solve either.

dopa42365 1 hour ago||||
The same 3rd party datacenters from the same few companies that everything else runs on? If there's demand, hyperscalers will supply.
thereitgoes456 1 hour ago|||
Stargate is not real.

It is not clear that running one's own datacenter is a competitive advantage. Why do you think OpenAI can handle that?

Gomotono 1 hour ago||
Stargate as a project is real, they only stoped the Stargate UK thing.

Anthropics relativ longterm contract with xAI def shows that they can fill the capacity vs Musk not. OpenAI and Anthropic are both using a lot of capacity so its fair to say that this is an advantage.

If they stay very close competitive (which they are), your own datacenter does reduce token price.

CuriouslyC 25 minutes ago|||
Anthropic is riding a hype wave as a result of brilliant marketing. OpenAI has the better products, higher reliability and better community relations. I don't expect the situation to continue.
hereme888 23 minutes ago||
I agree
karmasimida 27 minutes ago|||
OpenAI isn't shaky or vulnerable, this market will need at least 2 players.

I see most of the surge here comes FOMO AI spending which will have to be dialed down later half of the year, otherwise those companies will have to layoff to fund their AI bill, which is harmful to their business.

Anthropic grabs its bag at the peak, but feast is over.

andy_ppp 1 hour ago|||
I wonder if being consistently candid is a superior business strategy?
wslh 1 hour ago|||
This business and financial race is probably the craziest in human history, so zig-zags are expected. One company may take advantage on one curve while another is stuck in the pits.
ignoramous 1 hour ago|||
How? OpenAI and Antrophic are basically the Big 2 racing away at light speed; the others who can't get near them are perhaps shaky & vulnerable. And sure, there's a garden full of those.
cmiles8 1 hour ago|||
Because the market almost certainly can’t support two foundation model labs given the increasingly little difference across models and the massive sums of cash required to keep it all going. There is no big 2, just a race to survive and be the big 1.
treis 34 minutes ago|||
There's at least two markets here. Consumer ad driven and worker augmentation markets. Likely a 3rd as a backend infrastructure provider to a bunch of value add companies.

I think Google has caught up enough to certainly be a player in the consumer ad driven market.

I also don't think only one foundation model adds up. Now that the trail is blazed a dozen companies can likely make a good enough model. The question is if there's a moat to make it winner take all

dchftcs 1 hour ago||||
China will make sure they have a frontier lab, there's plenty of chance for Google to catch up once the compute crunch gets more serious.
solenoid0937 1 hour ago||||
Disagree, both are coexisting fine today.
claytongulick 49 minutes ago|||
A series "H" for $65 billion and no path to profitability is existing fine?
solenoid0937 10 minutes ago||
Sure, if you think there is even a small chance that OpenAI and Anthropic will get to AGI, it's practically a bargain.

They don't seem too far off to me.

an0malous 1 hour ago||||
It probably can't support any because there's no moat and smaller, open source models are catching up. This is like investing $1T into mainframe computers in 1980.
dotcoma 38 minutes ago||||
isn't Google going to win the race anyway ?
watwut 43 minutes ago|||
If it cant support two competing compamies, something is very wrong. Oligopoly is bad, monopoly worst.

Well functioning market is supposed to have many, as in a lot, companies with similar products. To create competition.

andriy_koval 1 hour ago|||
Google likely has its market share too, you can track how fast Cloud revenue increased.
decimalenough 5 minutes ago||
It's a gold rush and Google is both selling shovels and digging for gold itself.
henry2023 1 hour ago|||
“Caballo que alcanza, gana”
fontain 1 hour ago|||
I’m not so sure. We only need to look at Uber’s example of companies realizing they’re spending way too much and trying to rein it in. Claude has excellent revenue but it is highly dependent on very rich technology companies continuing to spend lavishly without seeing returns. The music will stop at some point and Anthropic will be hit the hardest. OpenAI may have less revenue but it is distributed across many, many more customers and use cases, it’s resilient. And even if Anthropic do, somehow, manage to keep their customers spending huge amounts on Claude, they’re very vulnerable to being undercut by OpenAI given codex is pretty much at parity. Anthropic seems more vulnerable to me.
Archonical 1 hour ago|||
I think it's somewhat guaranteed that the music will at least die down a little bit. We saw this with cloud companies being bitten by cloud cost optimization initiatives. I can't imagine we won't see the same with AI, especially as the workforce stops trying to tokenmaxx to save their role.
Gomotono 1 hour ago||
If you look at the adoption curve of Claude, I don't think we have reached anything near peak.
Analemma_ 1 hour ago||||
Every week there's at least one post on the HN front page bitching about API errors from Claude because Anthropic doesn't have enough serving capacity. I really don't see any signs they're "spending too much", the actual evidence on the ground seems to be exactly the opposite: constant exasperation that they're not spending enough.
CuriouslyC 23 minutes ago|||
Unlike OpenAI, a lot of Claude's infra problems are self-inflicted and not completely raw-capacity related.
newaccountman2 1 hour ago||||
What he means is the customers realizing they are spending too much on Anthropic.
claytongulick 42 minutes ago||
I just finished talking to a dev manager friend of mine at a household name company.

He told me they are massively pulling back on the AI stuff.

Right now the lashback is about cost, because that's the most easily measured pain point.

Soon, we'll start seeing a deeper understanding of the quality issues. At that point, it's likely this whole experiment gets firmly put in a bin of the toolbox where it belongs.

icedchai 11 minutes ago||
I know people at medium size companies where they are tracking AI costs very carefully. They are pulling back to levels under $100/week in AI spend per engineer, encouraging use of lower quality, lower cost models, etc.
decimalenough 1 minute ago||
I don't doubt you, but $100 is approximately the cost to company of one hour of dev time. If companies end up being willing to spend only 2% of their dev budget on AI, this bubble is not going to last long.
fontain 1 hour ago|||
I mean Anthropic’s customers are spending too much on Claude. Anthropic’s customers are encouraging tokenmaxxing amongst their employees; measuring employees by token usage. That’s great for Anthropic’s short term revenue numbers but terrible long term because at some point companies will realize tokenmaxxing is not good. OpenAI is much less exposed to tokenmaxxing, which is a good thing.
solenoid0937 1 hour ago||
> at some point companies will realize tokenmaxxing is not good

Why? Have we figured out the limits of what agents can do?

> OpenAI is much less exposed to tokenmaxxing

I don't think this is true, from my own experience & chatting with my acquaintances.

fontain 1 hour ago||
Tokenmaxxing is the practice of measuring employees by how many tokens they use, encouraging employees to burn tokens needlessly, it is unrelated to what agents can do.

If a task can be completed with 100k tokens but employees are considered better performers if they complete it with 500k tokens instead… that’s unsustainable and cannot possibly benefit Anthropic in the long term.

At some point, Amazon and Uber and so on and so forth are going to realize that actually, employees using 100k tokens or even 50k tokens is better than 500k and Anthropic’s revenue will fall off a cliff.

solenoid0937 26 minutes ago||
Oh. I thought tokenmaxxing was just removing token limits
fontain 4 minutes ago||
I think removing limits is fine. There’ll be overspend and at some point adjustments in expectations as we learn more about the value that can be delivered which will likely result in a reduction in spend, but even now, during this period of relative immaturity about measuring the value of output, so long as more tokens = more output, I don’t think the introduction of limits represents much of a risk to Anthropic and OpenAI. Tokenmaxxing is uniquely bad because it is not tied to any additional value (more tokens for the same output).

And I could be wrong about tokenmaxxing being a Claude specific problem but as far as I can tell, all of the major companies encouraging employees to maximize their token usage are Claude Code users. And the music has to stop on that at some point, whether because the companies run out of money or because they learn better ways of measuring productivity in the AI age. And if tokenmaxxing is what is driving Anthropic’s lead in revenue, it could be catastrophic to lose that, because Anthropic are spending billions of dollars per month on the infrastructure to support it.

If tokenmaxxing is evenly distributed between Anthropic and OpenAI then they’ll both hurt but equal hurt shouldn’t disadvantage either much.

ripvanwinkle 1 hour ago||
[dead]
maxnevermind 28 minutes ago||
What is this, Series for ants? It barely covers Andrej's sign-on bonus.
GenerWork 2 hours ago||
As someone who knows admittedly knows nothing about startup funding rounds, how many more rounds of funding can they do before an IPO? Is it effectively infinite?
tomwheeler 1 hour ago||
Effectively infinite. Databricks is a good example. They're still private after 13 years and closed a Series L round last year. Stripe is similar.

Having been through an IPO before, it was good for employee liquidity, but bad for the culture and long-term success of the company.

charlie0 1 hour ago|||
Dead capital. There's no need for public funding until they are reasy to cash out at the top, if ever.
solenoid0937 1 hour ago||
How do investors cash out? Do they sell to new round investors?
barbarr 34 minutes ago|||
Going off the other reply, I wonder if a highly-active secondary market means that companies can raise series [A-Z]+ rounds effectively forever, where each "round" just refers to a giant purchase of shares under strict company supervision. Is this the new game for startups?
bix6 1 hour ago|||
Correct. There is also a secondary market.
misiti3780 1 hour ago|||
so how do stripe employees get liquidity? can anyone sell their secondary shares?
tomwheeler 1 hour ago|||
I can't speak for the specific case of Stripe, but it's fairly common for private companies to have a "tender offer" in which employees have the opportunity to sell some portion of their equity. This is often done in conjunction with a new investment round.
Scoundreller 27 minutes ago||||
Bankruptcy court?

FTX bought 8% of Anthropic for $500m in 2021.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/josipamajic/2026/03/18/ftx-owne...

jiveturkey 12 minutes ago||||
There's a newish term for this: RLO, Recurring Liquidity Opportunity. These are tender offers at some recurring interval. Even some companies that have a shorter lifespan (say 7 years) offer this.
toomuchtodo 1 hour ago||||
Tender offers.

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tender_offer

https://carta.com/learn/equity/liquidity-events/tender-offer...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

(secondary markets are sometimes an option, depending on stock transfer restrictions)

vanuatu 23 minutes ago||||
regular tender offers
newaccountman2 1 hour ago||||
Private/secondary markets.
clint 1 hour ago|||
Stripe might buy back the shares at a good price. They might be able to sell on secondary markets.
toasty228 26 minutes ago|||
Once they reach series Z does it go back to A or do we get a new format like AA, AB ?
Npovview 7 minutes ago||
We live in Unicode times. We switch to Greek alphabets.

α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ σ τ υ φ χ ψ ω

dkdcdev 1 hour ago|||
I believe the canonical example is Databricks on round L
nerdsniper 1 hour ago||
I believe Databricks series L round raised $4B in late 2025, but earlier this year they raised another $5B so technically they've maybe completed series M round and are "on" series N round now? The press releases are a bit confusing to me.
tomwheeler 1 hour ago||
It's semantics, but the latest raise might have been a follow-on to Series M, not a new round (to be clear, I know nothing about their finances, just speaking from experience at another company).
jmathai 1 hour ago|||
I imagine there are ways for existing investors to achieve liquidity while still raising venture funding. But an IPO is "the" liquidity event and I imagine there will be pressure from investors for that.

I also imagine that venture funding rounds have a lower ceiling than the public markets - but at these rounds I'm not so sure!

ielillo 1 hour ago|||
usually you would go through seed funding, the series a,b, and possibly a1 and b1. If you entered c or d territory it meant that you still had a chance but vc would be following you very closely. After d, you could raise money, but it would be under very unfavorable conditions
wina 1 hour ago|||
they can do as many as they want. but at some point investors need/want to exit their positions and push for an IPO. That point is different for every company.
rvz 1 hour ago|||
Depends on the investors if they see growth. The downside is dilution. Preferably they just want the Series I as the IPO in this case.

They cannot raise forever, SpaceX has done more rounds but the timing is most important.

re-thc 1 hour ago||
Yes, whatever you like
topherPedersen 1 hour ago||
Anthropic has a great product, but what's going on in the stock market is astonishing. Companies waiting to be valued at a trillion dollars before going public? (I'm writing this comment with the assumption that they will go public soon and the valuation will be higher than this $965 billion dollar private valuation) The stock market used to be a place for companies to raise money from investors. But that isn't what it is anymore, it's a dumping ground. Venture capitalists & private investors are sucking all of the possible growth and future upside from these companies and then dumping them on retail investors when there's nothing left. There is no growth or upside left by the time these companies go public. If you invest in these IPOs you are buying the absolute peak with all potential future profits baked into the price, with nowhere left to go but down.
taude 1 hour ago||
Yeup, no shortage of tech IPOs over the past five years that are now valued at like 5% of what they were after being dumped onto the market: ZoomInfo, Bumble, Gemini

And many more that are 50% of what they were: Snowflake, Coinbase

And many more that went back to private companies and then were sold off: Carbon Black, etc...

I'm actually too lazy to go list out all of them.

But employees, beware, of those gnarly lockup periods post IPO where all the better classed options than yours get to exit.

onlyrealcuzzo 1 hour ago|||
> But that isn't what it is anymore, it's a dumping ground.

We got "dumped" Google and Facebook, so... Those probably made up for all the other "dumps".

We also got "dumped" TSLA, which is meme-ing in the trillions at the moment.

You can short Anthropic at IPO if you want...

NewJazz 41 minutes ago||||
Google IPO 20 years ago, Tesla 15 years ago, facebook almost 15 years ago.

Situations change.

onlyrealcuzzo 30 minutes ago|||
When did they change? 3 years and 4 months ago? 1 year ago? 8 years?

Because when Facebook IPO'd everyone was saying the stock market was a dumping ground...

Same with Google...

Same with Pets.com and WebVan...

Npovview 2 minutes ago||
Few Pheonix(s) rise from the ashes of many Unicorns.
signatoremo 30 minutes ago|||
Maybe but can you elaborate what the changes are?
surgical_fire 13 minutes ago|||
Or he can just steer clear of the eventual Anthropic stock. Shorting is not the only strategy available to avoid losing money.

But you, of course, can buy on their IPO. They need every bagholder they can get :)

surgical_fire 16 minutes ago|||
If they could have gone public, they probably would have. I hope they do, their S1 might be good meme material.

Companies that reached a level of maturity where going public make sense don't keep doing funding rounds to cover the rate at which they bleed money.

qeternity 1 hour ago||
> Venture capitalists & private investors are sucking all of the possible growth and future upside from these companies and then dumping them on retail investors when there's nothing left.

A lot of the money that is deployed by VCs comes from pension funds and asset managers that ultimately manage money for the average Joe.

andriy_koval 37 minutes ago||
Is there any evidence of what is the share/volume of such assets involved?
iooi 1 hour ago||
So close to being the first kilocorn. A unicorn = 1 billion, this is almost 1k.
someperson 1 hour ago||
Hasn't SpaceX achieved that though?

And Saudi Aramco before they IPO'd

Jblx2 1 hour ago||
Kibicorn has a nicer ring to it ($1,024 billion).
8f2ab37a-ed6c 1 hour ago||
Say you join Anthropic now as an employee. What are the chances of your equity appreciating in value? I don't think we have any historical precedents to this.
bix6 59 minutes ago||
Well presumably nobody investing in this current round expects anything less than a 3x
hiddencost 51 minutes ago||
inflation

I suspect we'll have our first $10T company in the next 2-3 years. That's only doubling.

bix6 56 minutes ago||
This is all getting a bit tiring. Show us the S1 already!
mutator 1 hour ago||
This did round involve a secondary? If yes, any data to suggest that these secondaries are leading to increased spending outside of housing and propping up the local economy?
jiveturkey 8 minutes ago|
There was a secondary sale in April.
whalesalad 1 hour ago||
They're going to run out of letters pretty soon.
gruez 1 hour ago|
Anyone in finance should know that excel doesn't run out of letters (for columns) either. It just rolls over to AA, AB, etc.
onychomys 34 minutes ago||
They eventually stop, Excel has a max column size of 16,384. Not sure what letter combo that would be (ZZZZZZZZZZ or something?), but it does eventually halt.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/excel-specificati...

Lionga 1 hour ago|
Boys we got more subsidy for Claude Code Plans! Let the VC financed spending of 1000$ of datacenter cost for 200$ sales price continue!
beavis000 35 minutes ago|
great point. i haven't gotten over losing the Uber subsidy!
More comments...