OpenAI and Anthropic are demonstrating impressive growth rates in revenue and market capitalization, but their further development is increasingly dependent on three key factors: access to computing power, data center financing, and regulatory decisions. An analysis of internal documents and industry reports shows that infrastructure constraints are becoming the main bottleneck for these AI giants.
Revenue as a Function of Compute
OpenAI explicitly states that its revenue is tied to the available volume of computing. The company's CFO, Sarah Friar, revealed that from 2023 to 2025, computing power grew from 0.2 GW to approximately 1.9 GW, while annual recurring revenue rose from $2 billion to over $20 billion. The developer of ChatGPT calls computing the most scarce resource in AI and claims that greater access to infrastructure would accelerate product adoption and monetization. The company has transitioned from relying on a single provider to a "diversified ecosystem" of suppliers, but profit metrics remain undisclosed.
Anthropic follows a similar logic. On May 28, the company announced raising $65 billion in a Series H round at a $965 billion valuation. Annualized revenue based on the current sales run rate exceeded $47 billion in May. The funds will be used, among other things, to expand computing power for Claude.
The Cost of Infrastructure: Trillions of Dollars and Growing Risks
Scaling advanced AI models is becoming a capital-intensive task not only for developers but also for the entire chain of data center, energy, chip, and cloud infrastructure suppliers. Analysts at Goldman Sachs Research estimate that the four largest hyperscalers — Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet — will spend $5.3 trillion on capital expenditures in 2025–2030. OpenAI and Anthropic are not included in this sample, highlighting their dependence on external infrastructure.
The Bank for International Settlements, in its 2026 annual economic report, warned that the five largest cloud infrastructure providers will spend over $1 trillion on AI-related capital expenditures in 2025–2026. These commitments are already outpacing the companies' profits and free cash flow, leading some to take on debt financing. If monetization expectations are not met, this could trigger a sharp reduction in funding and impact the entire investment cycle.
Regulatory Risk: Sudden Restrictions and Geopolitics
Beyond the cost of computing, major AI companies face the risk of sudden restrictions from authorities. In June, Anthropic reported halting access to the Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models due to a directive from the U.S. government under export controls. The company noted that the authorities' letter contained no specific details about the security issue and linked the claims to a possible circumvention of Fable 5's safety mechanisms.
In the same month, the Donald Trump administration asked OpenAI not to release GPT-5.6 to the general public immediately due to security concerns. On June 30, the Department of Commerce lifted the restrictions on the models, after which Anthropic restored access. This episode is part of the company's ongoing conflict with U.S. authorities. In February 2026, the U.S. Army used Claude in an operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth called the developer a "supply chain risk." Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei stated that the company would prefer not to cooperate with the Pentagon rather than agree to the use of its technologies in a way that could "undermine, rather than protect, democratic values."
Going Public: The Backdrop for the Infrastructure Race
Despite all the risks, OpenAI and Anthropic continue to explore opportunities to enter the public market. The former filed a confidential IPO application on June 8, the latter a week earlier. Both companies emphasized that the terms of the offering have not been determined.
For investors, the key question will be not only the valuation of the companies but also the economics of scaling: how much does it cost to sustain user growth, how quickly do data centers pay off, how stable are the funding channels, and can regulators restrict access to the flagship product.
My Expert Opinion: The current situation resembles an arms race, where the winner is not the one with the best model, but the one who can ensure its operation at the required scale. Regulatory risks add unpredictability: one sudden restriction could collapse entire supply chains. Investors should closely monitor not only revenue reports but also the geopolitical landscape — it could become a decisive factor in valuing these companies.