OpenAI's top executive openly criticises company's biggest rival Anthropic in employee memo; says: 'Anthropic's story is built on fear, restriction and the idea that…
Denise Dresser, OpenAI's chief revenue officer, took direct aim at Anthropic in an internal memo sent to employees over the weekend—calling out its rival's revenue accounting, compute strategy , and company philosophy in unusually blunt terms. The memo reads less like a strategic briefing and more like a case built against a courtroom opponent, dedicating significant space to dismantling Anthropic's narrative at a moment when the Claude-maker is gaining serious ground.
The memo, viewed by The Verge, paints a picture of an OpenAI that is increasingly rattled by Anthropic's momentum. Dresser wrote that "the market is as competitive as I have ever seen it" and devoted a substantial chunk of the four-page document to picking apart Anthropic's business. The timing is notable: Anthropic's annualised revenue reportedly surged from $9 billion at the end of 2025 to $30 billion by March, fuelled largely by demand for its coding tools.
OpenAI claims Anthropic's $30 billion revenue figure is inflated by around $8 billion due to how it accounts for cloud partnerships with Google and Amazon
Dresser's sharpest line was aimed squarely at Anthropic's identity. "Their story is built on fear, restriction, and the idea that a small group of elites should control AI," she wrote—a characterisation that mirrors OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's long-running positioning of his company as the more democratising force in AI. In February, Altman had written that "Anthropic serves an expensive product to rich people."
On the revenue dispute, Dresser accused Anthropic of using "accounting treatment that makes revenue look bigger than it is," specifically by grossing up revenue-sharing deals with Amazon and Google rather than reporting net figures. OpenAI claims the difference amounts to roughly $8 billion, which would drop Anthropic's stated $30 billion run rate to around $22 billion—conveniently placing it behind OpenAI's reported $24 billion. Anthropic disputes this, saying it recognises gross revenue because it is the principal in those transactions, with cloud partners acting as distribution channels.
Dresser also flagged what she described as a strategic blunder: Anthropic's conservative approach to acquiring compute. OpenAI says it has secured 8 gigawatts of computing capacity and is targeting 30 gigawatts by 2030, while it expects Anthropic to reach just 7 to 8 gigawatts by end of 2027. "Their strategic misstep to not acquire enough compute is showing up in the product," Dresser wrote, pointing to throttling and weaker availability as symptoms.
Both companies are burning billions annually and racing toward IPOs, with investors now openly questioning OpenAI's $852 billion valuation
The memo's broader message was a rallying cry for OpenAI to out-execute on enterprise. Dresser urged the company to stop thinking of itself as a multi-product company and instead "think like a platform company with multiple entry points and one integrated enterprise offering." She emphasised that multi-year, nine-figure deals with enterprise clients are rising—and that's the territory OpenAI now most wants to defend.
Both companies are expected to go public this year, making the revenue and narrative war between them very much a preview of what investors will hear on the road to their respective IPOs.
OpenAI claims Anthropic's $30 billion revenue figure is inflated by around $8 billion due to how it accounts for cloud partnerships with Google and Amazon
Dresser's sharpest line was aimed squarely at Anthropic's identity. "Their story is built on fear, restriction, and the idea that a small group of elites should control AI," she wrote—a characterisation that mirrors OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's long-running positioning of his company as the more democratising force in AI. In February, Altman had written that "Anthropic serves an expensive product to rich people."
On the revenue dispute, Dresser accused Anthropic of using "accounting treatment that makes revenue look bigger than it is," specifically by grossing up revenue-sharing deals with Amazon and Google rather than reporting net figures. OpenAI claims the difference amounts to roughly $8 billion, which would drop Anthropic's stated $30 billion run rate to around $22 billion—conveniently placing it behind OpenAI's reported $24 billion. Anthropic disputes this, saying it recognises gross revenue because it is the principal in those transactions, with cloud partners acting as distribution channels.
Dresser also flagged what she described as a strategic blunder: Anthropic's conservative approach to acquiring compute. OpenAI says it has secured 8 gigawatts of computing capacity and is targeting 30 gigawatts by 2030, while it expects Anthropic to reach just 7 to 8 gigawatts by end of 2027. "Their strategic misstep to not acquire enough compute is showing up in the product," Dresser wrote, pointing to throttling and weaker availability as symptoms.
The memo's broader message was a rallying cry for OpenAI to out-execute on enterprise. Dresser urged the company to stop thinking of itself as a multi-product company and instead "think like a platform company with multiple entry points and one integrated enterprise offering." She emphasised that multi-year, nine-figure deals with enterprise clients are rising—and that's the territory OpenAI now most wants to defend.
Both companies are expected to go public this year, making the revenue and narrative war between them very much a preview of what investors will hear on the road to their respective IPOs.
Next Story