OpenAI’s Quarterly Revenue Reportedly Tops $10 Billion as Losses Widen

Third-quarter sales rose about 50% sequentially on demand for new models and enterprise products, but adjusted operating losses grew to $10.9 billion. — Generated via ComfyUI / Z-Image Turbo

Revenue crosses $10 billion

OpenAI’s revenue reached $10 billion in the three months ending in September, according to a person familiar with the matter cited by bostonherald.com. The report ties the result to strong demand for the company’s latest artificial intelligence software. The period matters because it fixes the figure in a discrete quarter rather than an annual projection. The source remained anonymous, and no audited statement or company-published financial table appears in the supplied record.

techcrunch.com put second-quarter sales at $6.7 billion, making the third-quarter figure an increase of almost 50%. Its earlier reported growth rate was about 18% between the first and second quarters. The sequential growth rate therefore nearly tripled while the revenue base expanded. That comparison also limits what can be claimed. Two intervals establish a sharper trajectory, but they do not establish a durable growth rate or explain how much demand came from each product.

biggo.com reported an annualized revenue run rate near $50 billion alongside the quarterly result. That run rate is a snapshot extrapolation, not sales already collected, and it should remain separate from the $10 billion quarter. techcrunch.com attributed the result to strong demand for recent AI models and described a rebound from weaker conditions earlier in the year. The evidence does not provide monthly revenue, pricing, or churn, so the durability of the acceleration remains unresolved.

Enterprise sales and consumer subscriptions

Enterprise revenue doubled from the prior quarter and now accounts for half of sales, according to biggo.com. That places the business at the centre of the revenue mix. The doubling also supplies a more specific mechanism than general model demand: enterprise sales expanded faster than the total business. The report does not disclose contract values, seat counts, renewal rates, or customer numbers. Those omissions prevent a distinction between broader adoption and a smaller set of large purchases.

Consumer subscriptions passed 100 million users, against 1.2 billion weekly active users, the same report said. Those figures describe different things: subscriptions concern paying relationships, while weekly activity measures usage across the wider product base. The reported revenue therefore cannot be read as a simple function of total active users. The evidence does not state subscription prices, paid conversion, regional distribution, or product coverage. It supports a scale comparison, not a reliable estimate of consumer average revenue.

Chief financial officer Sarah Friar credited coding and cybersecurity products and the Dots agent platform, according to biggo.com. She also said cloud distribution deals could become a major tailwind in 2027. That is a forward-looking management assessment, not booked revenue, and the evidence supplies no values or counterparties for those deals. The product attribution narrows the demand account to named software categories. It does not quantify their contributions, so coding, cybersecurity, and Dots cannot be ranked by sales.

Losses widen as margins improve

Adjusted operating losses reached $10.9 billion, up from $10.1 billion, while the adjusted operating margin improved to -109% from -150%, biggo.com reported. Those movements are compatible because margin measures loss relative to revenue, whereas the dollar figure measures absolute size. Rapid revenue growth can therefore improve the ratio without reducing the absolute loss. The figures also show why sequential sales growth alone cannot describe financial progress: the company sold more and lost more in absolute terms during the same comparison.

The margin improvement is substantial, but a -109% adjusted operating margin still means the reported loss exceeded quarterly revenue under that measure. Neither the revenue mix nor the subscription figures identify the cost base behind it. The supplied reports do not break out spending on computing, research, staffing, sales, or infrastructure, and they do not reconcile adjusted operating loss with net income or cash flow. Any claim that enterprise growth is already financing the expansion would exceed the evidence. The open question is which costs decline relative to sales.

Anthropic provides a contrasting operating profile in the same biggo.com report: $33.2 billion in nine-month revenue and a $567 million quarterly operating loss. The periods and loss definitions are not directly interchangeable with OpenAI’s third-quarter adjusted figures, so the numbers do not establish relative efficiency. Anthropic was also preparing an IPO that could value it near $1.4 trillion, according to the report. That valuation is prospective, while the revenue and loss figures describe reported operations. The comparison supplies scale context without a common accounting basis for ranking the companies.

OpenAI’s Quarterly Revenue Reportedly Tops $10 Billion as Losses Widen

Revenue crosses $10 billion

Enterprise sales and consumer subscriptions

Losses widen as margins improve

Sources