Anthropic and OpenAI are two of the biggest names in AI, and the competition between them is no longer limited to models, customers, or funding.
They are also being closely watched in private markets.
In Augment’s Q3 2024 Power 20 rankings, Anthropic ranked #3, while OpenAI came in at #4. More importantly, this was not a one-quarter development. Anthropic had ranked ahead of OpenAI for two consecutive quarters.
So what changed?
It wasn’t simply that Anthropic had a higher estimated share price or more revenue. Augment’s ranking methodology looks at several factors together, including investor activity, price movement, bid-ask spreads, revenue growth, and past performance.
Looking at those factors side by side gives us a better sense of why Anthropic moved ahead.
1. Investor activity gave Anthropic a strong boost
One of the biggest differences was activity in the private market.
Augment tracks investor activity on its platform, along with how that activity is changing over time. This matters because some private companies trade more frequently than others, while restrictions can limit trading activity in companies such as OpenAI.
Anthropic saw higher activity than OpenAI in both Q2 and Q3 2024.
It also saw meaningful quarter-over-quarter increases in activity during both periods.
OpenAI, on the other hand, experienced moderate declines in activity across the same quarters.
The bigger story goes back even further.
In Q1 2024, Anthropic’s activity increased fivefold compared with Q4 2023. That acceleration in activity over the course of 2024 helped Anthropic strengthen its position in the rankings.
So while a single quarter of higher activity would not necessarily explain the difference, the consistent increase in activity throughout the year became an important part of Anthropic’s overall score.
2. OpenAI actually performed better on price growth in some quarters
This is where things get interesting.
You might assume Anthropic moved ahead because its estimated private-market share price was consistently growing faster than OpenAI’s.
That wasn’t the case.
Price movement was one of the factors in the ranking, but it was not the deciding factor.
In fact, OpenAI had higher estimated share-price growth in two of the three quarters covered in the analysis.
Here’s how the numbers looked:
- Q3 2024: Anthropic’s estimated share price increased 8.6%, compared with 6.7% for OpenAI
- Q2 2024: OpenAI’s estimated per-share price increased 15.7%, compared with 11.5% for Anthropic
- Q1 2024: Anthropic’s estimated per-share price fell 40%, while OpenAI’s increased 3%
The Q1 numbers are particularly important.
Anthropic, along with several other AI companies, experienced a sharp decline after the very high private-market valuations seen during the AI enthusiasm at the end of 2023.
That decline contributed to OpenAI ranking #3 in Q1, while Anthropic was at #6.
By Q3, however, Anthropic had recovered strongly enough for its estimated share-price growth to be the highest among the top five names in the Power 20.
The takeaway: price performance helped Anthropic, particularly in Q3, but it wasn’t the main reason it moved ahead of OpenAI.
3. Bid-ask spreads showed another difference
Another metric in the ranking is the bid-ask spread, measured using volume-weighted average prices, or VWAPs.
Simply put, the spread gives some indication of how closely buyers and sellers agree on the value of a private company.
A narrower spread generally points to healthier two-sided market activity and greater agreement around pricing.
In Q1 2024:
- OpenAI had a 7% spread
- Anthropic had a 4% spread
Anthropic also performed better on this metric in Q2, although OpenAI had the narrower spread in Q1.
Again, this wasn’t a factor where Anthropic dominated OpenAI in every period. Instead, it contributed to the broader picture that Augment’s methodology was trying to capture.
4. Revenue growth was a major differentiator
This is arguably one of the more interesting parts of the comparison.
Augment gives more weight to revenue growth than absolute revenue.
That makes sense when comparing private companies at different stages. A company that has been around longer will naturally have had more time to build up revenue, so focusing heavily on the absolute number could disadvantage younger companies.
Anthropic’s growth rate stood out.
According to Augment’s estimates:
- Anthropic’s revenue grew approximately 1,400% in 2023
- OpenAI’s revenue grew approximately 900% during the same year
Both numbers are significant.
But Anthropic’s growth rate was higher, and that history became an important contributor to its ranking.
It also highlights something worth remembering when looking at fast-growing private companies:
The size of the business today is only part of the story. The pace at which that business is growing can be just as important.
5. The ranking isn’t based on one quarter
There is another detail that can easily get overlooked.
The Power 20 ranking isn’t simply a snapshot of what happened during the latest three-month period.
Past performance also carries weight in the methodology.
That means Anthropic’s position in Q3 wasn’t determined only by what happened between July and September.
Its improving activity levels, previous performance, price movements, and revenue growth history all contributed to its overall score.
This is important because it changes how we should interpret the ranking.
Anthropic didn’t suddenly become “better” than OpenAI in Q3.
Instead, several of Anthropic’s metrics had been improving over time, and those improvements accumulated enough weight to move it ahead.
So, why did Anthropic overtake OpenAI?
The simplest answer is that Anthropic improved across several important parts of the ranking at the same time.
OpenAI had some clear strengths. Its estimated share-price growth was higher than Anthropic’s in Q2, and it also had a narrower spread than Anthropic in Q1.
But Anthropic had a few things working in its favor:
- Higher investor activity than OpenAI in Q2 and Q3
- Strong growth in activity throughout 2024
- Higher estimated share-price growth in Q3
- Narrower bid-ask spreads in some periods
- Stronger estimated revenue growth in 2023
- A track record of improving performance that carried through into subsequent quarters
The combination mattered more than any single metric.
And that’s perhaps the most useful lesson from the comparison.
Private-market rankings aren’t always about finding the company that wins every category. They’re often about identifying which company is improving the most across the factors that matter.
Anthropic vs. OpenAI: The bigger picture
The Anthropic vs. OpenAI comparison also shows why evaluating private companies can be complicated.
Unlike public companies, where investors have access to frequent financial disclosures and a continuously updated market price, private companies generally have less financial information and less transparent pricing.
That means private-market analysis often relies on a combination of available company data, observed trading activity, estimated prices, and other indicators.
In this case, Augment’s methodology brings several of those indicators together rather than relying solely on valuation or share-price movement.
And that produces an interesting result.
OpenAI did not necessarily perform poorly. Anthropic simply improved enough across several heavily weighted areas to move ahead.
What this could mean for investors watching the AI private market
The rankings are not a prediction of which company will ultimately become the bigger AI business, nor do they guarantee future investment performance.
But they do offer an interesting way to look at how private-market sentiment can shift.
The AI race is often discussed in terms of model capabilities, funding rounds, customers, and product launches.
Private-market activity adds another layer.
Who are investors trading? How quickly is activity changing? Are estimated prices moving? How fast is revenue growing? And how consistent is the company’s performance over time?
Looking at these factors together can reveal a different side of the competition.
For Anthropic, the story in this ranking was less about beating OpenAI on every metric and more about building momentum across several of them at once.
And that is what ultimately helped Anthropic hold the #3 position, ahead of OpenAI at #4, for the second consecutive quarter.
One important caveat
The Power 20 ranking should not be treated as investment advice or as a prediction of future performance.
Private-market investments come with significant risks, including illiquidity, limited financial information, limited pricing transparency, and potential loss of principal. Estimated private-market prices are not the same as prices from a public stock exchange, and an IPO or other liquidity event is not guaranteed.
The revenue figures discussed above are also third-party estimates, so they come with limitations around data availability and methodology.
For anyone following the private AI market, though, the Anthropic vs. OpenAI comparison offers a useful reminder:
There is rarely one metric that tells the whole story. Sometimes, the company gaining momentum across several smaller indicators can make the biggest move in the rankings.