4 ms·

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 fro

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 5mo 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.
- baal80spam 5mo ago
  Do ordinary people really know what Anthropic is?
  - __s 5mo ago
    They know that "claude's the good one"
  - cmiles8 5mo ago
    They know the cool kids have ditched OpenAI and now use Claude
  - postalrat 5mo ago
    They certainly know claude. I keep telling them they are all about the same.
  - pembrook 5mo 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=Anthropic&hl=en-US https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=... (see the massive spike in January of this year)
  - linuxftw 5mo ago
    Of course not. Normal people are using gemini, it comes pre-installed on Android now.
    - boringg 5mo ago
      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.
- jmathai 5mo 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.
  - bbg2401 5mo ago
    OpenAI is as open as Anthropic is anthropic.
    - boringg 5mo ago
      Great line. The irony of these names can't be overstated.
  - tredre3 5mo 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.
    - andrewl-hn 5mo ago
      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".
      - zozbot234 5mo ago
        [dead]
      - famouswaffles 5mo ago
        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.
- pavlov 5mo 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.
manquer 5mo 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 .
- Spartan-S63 5mo 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.
  - manquer 5mo ago
    You can configure model to be terse/concise with output style ? There are plenty of popular projects like https://github.com/JuliusBrussee/caveman 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.
- gruez 5mo 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 https://artificialanalysis.ai/?cost=intelligence-vs-cost
  - 5mo ago
epolanski 5mo ago
Sure, but people were claiming just 6-12 months ago that OpenAI had "brand moat" and "first mover advantage" that others would not have. Considering that their models are de facto extremely close in performance you would think that these arguments would've held, but they clearly don't.

cmiles8 5mo 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.

baal80spam 5mo ago
Do ordinary people really know what Anthropic is?
- __s 5mo ago
  They know that "claude's the good one"
- cmiles8 5mo ago
  They know the cool kids have ditched OpenAI and now use Claude
- postalrat 5mo ago
  They certainly know claude. I keep telling them they are all about the same.
- pembrook 5mo 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=Anthropic&hl=en-US https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=... (see the massive spike in January of this year)
- linuxftw 5mo ago
  Of course not. Normal people are using gemini, it comes pre-installed on Android now.
  - boringg 5mo ago
    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.
jmathai 5mo 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.
- bbg2401 5mo ago
  OpenAI is as open as Anthropic is anthropic.
  - boringg 5mo ago
    Great line. The irony of these names can't be overstated.
- tredre3 5mo 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.
  - andrewl-hn 5mo ago
    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".
    - zozbot234 5mo ago
      [dead]
    - famouswaffles 5mo ago
      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.
pavlov 5mo 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.

manquer 5mo ago

Spartan-S63 5mo 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.
- manquer 5mo ago
  You can configure model to be terse/concise with output style ? There are plenty of popular projects like https://github.com/JuliusBrussee/caveman 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.
gruez 5mo 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 https://artificialanalysis.ai/?cost=intelligence-vs-cost
- 5mo ago

epolanski 5mo ago

Sure, but people were claiming just 6-12 months ago that OpenAI had "brand moat" and "first mover advantage" that others would not have. Considering that their models are de facto extremely close in performance you would think that these arguments would've held, but they clearly don't.