• OpenAI recently told investors its annualised revenue was approaching $50 billion at the end of September, according to the Financial Times, contradicting earlier reports of $70 billion.
  • The lower figure implies a valuation-to-revenue multiple of roughly 28 times at a proposed $1.4 trillion pre-money valuation, up from about 20 times.
  • The discrepancy comes as OpenAI negotiates a new funding round of at least $30 billion, with questions mounting over its path to profitability.

OpenAI has informed investors that its annualised revenue was approaching $50 billion at the end of September, according to a Financial Times report, a figure that falls significantly short of the $70 billion that had been widely circulated just weeks earlier. The revelation, which could not be independently verified, raises fresh questions about the artificial intelligence giant’s growth trajectory and its ability to justify a proposed $1.4 trillion valuation.

The earlier $70 billion figure was reported by Reuters (TRI) on September 29, citing a person familiar with the matter, and had been used to bolster OpenAI’s fundraising narrative. The new number, roughly 29% lower, suggests that either the previous estimate was overstated or that revenue growth has decelerated more sharply than expected. Annualised revenue extrapolates a recent pace over a full year and does not necessarily reflect contracted recurring revenue or cash collected.

A Valuation Stretch

The discrepancy is particularly sensitive because OpenAI is in discussions to raise at least $30 billion at a $1.4 trillion pre-money valuation, according to people familiar with the negotiations. At $50 billion in annualised revenue, that valuation implies a multiple of about 28 times, up from roughly 20 times based on the $70 billion figure. While such multiples are not unheard of for high-growth technology companies, they leave little room for error, especially given OpenAI’s projected cash burn.

The company has projected cumulative negative free cash flow of $278 billion through 2030, tied to an aggressive infrastructure build-out. Its spending commitments include partnerships with Nvidia (NVDA), AMD (AMD), Microsoft (MSFT), Oracle (ORCL), AWS (AMZN), and CoreWeave (CRWV), among others. In March, OpenAI announced $122 billion in committed capital at an $852 billion post-money valuation, but that funding could be exhausted by 2028, according to Reuters.

OpenAI’s revenue mix is shifting toward enterprise customers. In March, the company said enterprise sales represented more than 40% of revenue and were on track to reach parity with consumer revenue by year-end. Enterprise sales have more than doubled since July, according to the earlier Reuters report. But the lower overall revenue figure suggests that even robust enterprise growth may not be enough to meet prior expectations.

IPO Plans on Hold

Meanwhile, OpenAI’s plans for an initial public offering appear to have stalled. The company confidentially filed for an IPO in June, but CEO Sam Altman subsequently ruled out a 2026 listing, citing AI-safety concerns. That decision places greater emphasis on private fundraising, making the revenue discrepancy more consequential for investors weighing participation in the new round.

The reported fundraising discussions involve UAE investment funds and BlackRock (BLK), extending an existing relationship—MGX, a UAE fund, participated in OpenAI’s March financing. The involvement of sovereign wealth and large asset managers underscores the growing role of international capital in financing U.S. AI infrastructure.

Regulatory pressures are also mounting. In August, the European Commission gained enforcement powers over general-purpose AI, including the ability to fine providers up to €15 million or 3% of annual turnover. OpenAI, along with Anthropic and Google (GOOGL), is among the providers affected. Compliance costs and potential market restrictions could weigh on future revenue.

OpenAI declined to comment on the revenue figure. A spokesperson for the company did not respond to requests for comment on the reported fundraising terms.

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the percentage difference between the two revenue figures. It is approximately 29%, not 40%.