| ▲ | duxup 3 days ago |
| These numbers seem made up at times / difficult to comprehend what they expect is happening ... |
|
| ▲ | Rebuff5007 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Probably because they are made up, and no one is able to comprehend what is happening. |
|
| ▲ | aaronblohowiak 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| alphabet is "worth" 2.45 trillion on the public market, is anthropic worth a bit less than 10% of google going forward? I don't think that's entirely unreasonable... |
| |
| ▲ | StopDisinfo910 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Alphabet 2024 revenue: 350 billions dollars
Anthropic 2024 revenue: 1 billion dollars Unreasonable doesn’t even start to capture it. Anthropic being worth 10% of Alphabet is beyond insane. | | |
| ▲ | nostrademons 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I thought the same when choosing to invest in Intel rather than NVidia in 2022. At the time, Intel was worth $310B while NVidia was worth $650B, yet Intel's revenue was $80B/year while NVidia's was $25B. I was like "There's no way I'm paying 2x the price for 1/3 the revenue." Now, NVidia is worth $4T (a return of roughly 7x) on revenue of $165B, and Intel is worth $105B (a return of roughly -66%) on revenue of $53B. Investors are forward looking, and market conditions can change abruptly. If Anthropic actually displaces Google, it's amazingly cheap at 10% of Alphabet's market cap. (Ironically, I even knew that NVidia was displacing Intel at the time I invested, but figured that the magnitude of the transition couldn't possibly be worth the price differential. News flash: companies can go to zero, and be completely replaced by others, and when that happens their market caps just swap.) | | |
| ▲ | Printerisreal 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Investors are forward looking, except when it's micron in 2000. Anthropic have several similiar competitors with actual real distribution and tech. Ones that can go 10x are underdogs like Google before IPO or Amazon, or Shopify etc. Anthropic current stock is beyond that. Investors no longer give any big opp. to public. They gain it via private funding |
| |
| ▲ | wongarsu 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So all it takes is Anthropic 35x-ing their revenue once they start selling ad spots? That sounds pretty reasonable to me. Right now nobody wants to be the first to offer advertising in LLM services, but LLM conversation history provides a wealth of data for ad targeting. And in more permissive jurisdictions you can have the LLM deliver ads organically in the conversation or just shift the opinions and biases of the model through a short mention in the system message | | |
| ▲ | StopDisinfo910 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No, all it takes is Anthropic 35x-ing their revenue while Alphabet revenue somehow stays the same despite Alphabet already having a product perfectly competitive with Anthropic and which can use the same revenue growth strategy. As I said, insane. And that’s not even considering the 10 to 15% shares of Anthropic actually owned by Alphabet. | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | ZephyrBlu 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | __350x-ing__, not 35 |
| |
| ▲ | aripickar 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Tech Companies are valued at a multiple of next 12 months revenue, not last 12 months revenue. Since anthropic grew from $1billion to $5billion in revenue in ~8 months, that means it ~10x'ed revenue y/y off of 1 billion base. If you assume even 60% of that growth is retained (low for traditional saas businesses, but who knows), then anthropic is ~10% of google in terms of revenue in mid ~2027. Basically, 5x-ing revenue in 8 months off of a billion dollars starting revenue is insane. Growing this quickly at this scale breaks every traditional valuation metric. (And no - this doesn't include margins or COGS). | |
| ▲ | YetAnotherNick 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The company said its run-rate revenue has increased from around $1 billion at the beginning of 2025, to more than $5 billion in August. So 10% of valuation for 1.5% of revenue, which grew 5x in last 6 months. Doesn't seem as unrealistic as you put it, if it has good gross margin which some expects to be 60%. Also Google was valued at $350B when it had $5B revenue.[1] [1]: https://companiesmarketcap.com/alphabet-google/marketcap/ | |
| ▲ | matheist 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Valuation includes expected future growth, it's not just present value of future revenue given today's numbers. You may not agree with the market's estimation of that, but comparing just present revenue isn't really the right comparison. | | | |
| ▲ | dgrcode 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How old was alphabet in 2024? And anthropic? How much was google revenue in 2003? It was 1.5 billions (2.6 in today's USD) Not saying the price is justified, but the comparison is not very fair. | |
| ▲ | tdullien 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's just off by a factor of 35? | | | |
| ▲ | lifty 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Someone mentioned their projected ARR for 2025 is 9b. Which makes sense intuitively looking at how much I spent with them this year. So the valuation looks a bit more sane with those numbers. | |
| ▲ | jpalomaki 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Google’s advertising revenue in 2024 was about $264.6 billion" Somebody above said that Anthropic might reach $9 billion ARR by the end of this year. | |
| ▲ | csomar 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Here is another way to look at it: Anthropic is a put option on Google worth 10% of Google price. Expires when they run out of funds. | |
| ▲ | y0eswddl 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And that's not even looking at profits vs valuation... | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The valuation is not based solely on last year's revenue. Revenue doesn't really matter at this point. | | |
| ▲ | StopDisinfo910 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Anthropic competes solely in one of Alphabet multiple markets and that’s a market where Google already has a compelling competitive offer. This valuation gap doesn’t make any sense to me. |
|
| |
| ▲ | datadrivenangel 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's both insane and not unreasonable. If Anthropic's internal version of Claude Code gets so good that they can recreate all of google's products quickly there's no moat anymore. If AI is winner take all, then the value is effectively infinite. Obviously insane, but maybe it's winner take most? | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's the techno-hubristic version of Pascal's wager. The reward for the existence of God is infinite, so it worth investing all the money in the world to create one. | |
| ▲ | xp84 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > " If Anthropic's internal version of Claude Code gets so good that they can recreate all of google's products quickly" I know you aren't asserting this but rather just putting the argument out there, but to me at least it's interesting comparing a company that has vendor lock-in and monopoly or duopoly status in various markets vs one that doesn't. I'd argue that Google's products themselves haven't been their moat for decades -- their moat is "default search engine status" in the tiny number of Browsers That Matter (Arguably just Chrome and Mobile Safari), being entrenched as the main display ad network, duopoly status as an OS vendor (Android), and monopoly status on OS vendor for low-end education laptops (ChromeOS). If somehow those were all suddenly eliminated, I think Google would be orders of magnitude less valuable. | |
| ▲ | SirMaster 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is there no moat for previous account and user buy-in? Convincing billions of users to make a new account and do all their e-mail on a new domain? A new YouTube channel with all new subscribers? Migrate all their google drive and AdSense accounts to another company, etc? This is trivially simple and creates no moat? |
| |
| ▲ | seneca 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It feels a bit unreasonable to me. Anthropic is arguably comparable to Google's Gemini program. Is Gemini 10% of Alphabet's value? If so, how much of that is because of its ability to consume and interact with things like YouTube and Workspaces? I could see two or three percent, but this seems like a pretty big stretch. Then again, I'm not a VC. | | |
| ▲ | Zigurd 3 days ago | parent [-] | | To make a similar comparison, Alphabet's Waymo has AV's that actually work. But they're not capturing 80% of Tesla's valuation. | | |
| ▲ | xp84 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Don't those cost like $400,000 a piece to outfit, though? I mean this with tremendous respect because I think they're the only ones doing it "right," I feel like Waymo is kind of 'bruteforcing' autonomous driving using money. There's an inherent limit to the impact of a technology (and thus its long-term value) based on its cost, and even stipulating that Waymo has solved it in general, I think a valuation should be contingent on a roadmap which shows how it's going to scale out -- this seems like an as-yet unsolved problem until someone shows how to combine the reliability of the tech-heavy Waymo system with the price tag of a Tesla. | | |
| ▲ | jjmarr 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Historically speaking there was an 80 year period in which transporting mined, natural, lake ice from the US Northeast/Norway around the world was economically competitive with ice machines depending on local market conditions. Machine ice became competitive in India and Australia in the 1850s, but it took until the start of World War 1 (1914) for artificial ice production to surpass natural in America. And the industry only disappeared when every household could buy a refrigerator. Self-driving doesn't have to scale globally to be economically viable as a technology. It could already be viable at $400k in HCOL areas with perfect weather (i.e. California, Austin, and other places they operate). | | |
| ▲ | Zigurd 2 days ago | parent [-] | | One of the most interesting statistics about Waymo is how few of them there are. The only service area with what you could call a large number of vehicles is the Bay Area. The news reports I've seen about it say under 1000 there and fewer than 3000 nationally. Uber's CEO was quoted as saying that a Waymo completes more rides than 99% of Uber drivers. It's a pity he didn't make a comparison against the median Uber driver. But it's plausible that a Waymo could replace 10 Uber drivers or more. That ratio flows through to revenue. |
| |
| ▲ | Zigurd 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's like asking if it's better to launch on Falcon 9, or wait until Starship actually hits $100 a kilogram to orbit. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | potatoproduct 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sounds hugely unreasonable. At 1% I might've believed you. |
|
|
| ▲ | tinyhouse 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is the fastest-growing company by revenue, jumping from $1B to $3B in just five months. Hitting $10B is only a matter of time, which would put its valuation at a reasonable ~18x sales multiple. It doesn't even matter where we are in the AI hype cycle - AI adoption will keep increasing, it's not even a question at this point. From a technical perspective, they manage to attract top talent - Google / OpenAI lose a lot of good people to Anthropic. This is important since there are few people who can transform a business (e.g., the guy who built Claude Code). Being attractive for top talent means you're more likely stumble upon them. |
| |
| ▲ | aqme28 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I thought ~20x or so was a good baseline earnings multiple. I have no idea what makes sense as a revenue multiple but I bet it would be a lot lower than that. Edit: After looking it up, normal P/Sales ratios are on the order of about 1. They vary from like .2 to 8 depending on industry. | | |
| ▲ | tinyhouse 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You should check a few software companies that are publicly traded. Figma for example is at P/S ~38 multiple currently. Google at 6.8. If Anthropic would've done an IPO today they would probably be at ~100 given where Figma is. | |
| ▲ | utyop22 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're comparing the value of equity to firm earnings? Lol. I don't really bother calling out most financial stuff on here since I can't be bothered but come on. Its not internally consistent, at all. | | |
| ▲ | aqme28 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No, I'm calling out the person who is comparing those things. |
|
| |
| ▲ | miltonlost 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | My baby grew from 9 pounds to 18 pounds in a 3 months! Hitting 10000 lbs is only a matter of time. | | | |
| ▲ | FergusArgyll 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > they manage to attract top talent I do think this is important. Many of the best researchers are also religious AGIists and Anthropic is the most welcoming to them. This is a field where the competence of researchers really matters. |
|
|
| ▲ | perks_12 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Look at this post: https://x.com/NicoleSHsing/status/1961505968782774778 We're in a VC bubble; any project that mentions AI gets tons of money. |
| |
| ▲ | seneca 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That genuinely feels like satire. I guess the beauty of good satire is that it borders on reality. The Juicero of the AI era. | |
| ▲ | koakuma-chan 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What's wrong with that post? | | |
| ▲ | edm0nd 3 days ago | parent [-] | | its some GPT wrapper app that has 100 downloads. also if your founder has to use dozens of buzzwords when asked to describe what their app does and that still doesn't even explain it, its obviously just bs. "Arcarae’s mission is to help humanity remember and unlock the power each individual holds within themself so they can bring into reality their unique, authentic expression of self without fear or compromise. Our research endeavors are designed to support this mission via computationally modeling higher-order cognition and subjective internal world models." lol | | |
| ▲ | koakuma-chan 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > lol What do you mean lol? Isn't that awesome? Feel free to share if you think that isn't awesome. I personally don't think there is enough information here to tell if that is awesome or satire, but it is interesting how usually things like this are considered awesome, but this particular one is deemed satire. | | |
| ▲ | beAbU 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The post borders on turbo encabulatoe levels of insanity. It makes zero sense. What does the product do? | | |
| ▲ | koakuma-chan 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > What does the product do? I think this is like ChatGPT, but it generates "inner monologue" in the background, and the "inner monologue" is then added to the context, and this "addresses" "sycophancy, attention deficits, and inconsistent prioritization" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | chpatrick 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Depends on if you think we're at the end of AI development or the beginning. |
|
| ▲ | paulpauper 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People said the same about Open AI in 2023, only valued at $30 billion at the time, and then seemingly overnight Chat GPT become a major commercial product rivaling Google. Or Tesla valuations in 2019. It went from a niche brand to Teslas everywhere after Covid. These VCs are not as irrational as commonly assumed. They know if a product gains critical mass , it can become everything. |
| |
| ▲ | lm28469 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's still bleeding money with no profitability in sight, niche product or household name | | |
| ▲ | paulpauper 3 days ago | parent [-] | | same again for Amazon, Tesla, Uber and others. Then they began making billions. Anthropic is not a niche anymore though. Same for Chat GPT. | | |
| ▲ | Zigurd 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That's a pretty random selection. Amazon makes money. Uber is clawed their way back from the pit of doom of not having a viable business model and being led by a jackass. Tesla is a meme stock. At best these examples tell us nothing. | |
| ▲ | lm28469 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are they the exceptions or the rules, that's the question. |
|
| |
| ▲ | anthem2025 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Are you really trying to argue Tesla is fairly valued? In 2025? When their sales have nosedived, new products have flopped, their CEO is the most disliked man in America, and their self driving still requires someone in the car at all times? Tesla is a GameStop level meme stock. | |
| ▲ | duxup 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm not sure a couple successes makes sense of these numbers. |
|
|
| ▲ | isoprophlex 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It's a post-money valuation, so that suggests the money involved has transcended beyond actual moneyness into some other post-meaningful realm. |
| |
| ▲ | saberience 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Post-money just means you add the value of the actual investment into the valuation. E.g. The pre-money valuation would be 183B - 13B. i.e. pre-money valuation would be 170B | | |
| ▲ | aroman 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I think you missed their joke :) | | |
| ▲ | saberience 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Or the joke was so bad and non-obvious that their comment just reads like someone who has no idea what "post-money" actually means :) |
|
| |
| ▲ | AlienRobot 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Step 1: burn billions of dollars. Step 2: achieve AGI. Step 3: ? Step 4: transcend money. |
|