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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

bbg2401 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

OpenAI is as open as Anthropic is anthropic.

	▲	boringg 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Great line. The irony of these names can't be overstated.

▲

tredre3 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

▲

andrewl-hn 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

ChatGPT is a word now. People may use Perplexity, or Google, or Grok to ask questions online. And later they tell you "ChatGPT told me this". It's a new "I googled in Yahoo".

	▲	famouswaffles 40 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		ChatGPT is the 5th most visited site (as well as has nearly a billion weekly active users) and none of the competitors are even close. In the consumer space, Gemini is doing well but Claude is not even in the same galaxy. OpenAI is undoubtedly the leader in consumer LLMs and by a large margin. I'm sure there are mixups, but if someone is telling you they're using chatGPT, they almost certainly mean they're using chatGPT.
	▲	zozbot234 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

basch an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Few non-programmers have heard of anthropic or claude

They ran a super bowl ad. It's all over the construction industry. Claude is still not quite the Kleenex that ChatGPT is, but there is a pretty good chance lay people have heard of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude by now.

To disagree with the person below/above me that ChatGPT is the word used generically, when someone uses Gemini or Claude or Copilot, they TELL you which one they used, because they are essentially saying "i didnt use ChatGPT by choice."

Gemini is the one most likely to be used without people knowing which one they used.

▲

Spunkie an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Def sounds like a bubble to me. In my own bubble, ChatGTP is so well known over the others that people will often slip and refer to other AI services collectively as ChatGTP.

e.g. "I put it in chatgtp and..." when they actual asked Gemini.

	▲	satvikpendem 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Ironic that you spelled it wrong though thrice.

▲

kilroy123 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agreed. My Mom, who is a grandma, uses ChatGPT every day. Lots of nontech people use it.

	▲	koolba an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Is she paying for anything though?

▲

vasco 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Everyone knew Altavista too

▲

Marciplan 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

for normies it is the exact opposite.

▲

pavlov 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do ordinary people really know what Anthropic is?

▲

__s 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They know that "claude's the good one"

▲

postalrat 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They certainly know claude. I keep telling them they are all about the same.

▲

cmiles8 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They know the cool kids have ditched OpenAI and now use Claude

▲

linuxftw 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Of course not. Normal people are using gemini, it comes pre-installed on Android now.

	▲	boringg 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is the answer for gen pop. Gemini is going to mop up the floor on most use cases as its ingrained in google search.

▲

pembrook 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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

	▲	manquer 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There is no conclusion , I only stated the only objective fact to compare with that will not change for you to me. Everything else is subjective to your setup, use case, configuration tuning and so forth. More importantly bean-counters and decision makers at even 150+ seat orgs are looking at pricing sheets and enterprise contracts not how it performs for some team in a specific harness today to make million dollar annual contracts. It is not common for procurement teams to do commission the level of detailed analysis or large scale pilots that will actually hold for the duration of contract. That doesn't mean that GPT-5.5 is selling less than Claude at all, just that cost is not the primary driver if list price is not cheaper, there is reason these are published in the same format by every vendor, because the common metric is how finance likes to compare with.

▲

Spartan-S63 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

	▲	manquer 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You can configure model to be terse/concise with output style ? There are plenty of popular projects like https://github.com/JuliusBrussee/caveman which do it for you even. Input/Cache/Output ratios are use case and configuration dependent . Any benefits in one model can usually be roughly to another with configuration tuning, and discussions devolve into subjective experience. Pricing sheet is the objective way to compare cost.