Channel Structure Distorts Revenue Comparisons

The key point is that channel structure can change reported revenue without changing the underlying economics. Anthropic often books the full customer bill when Claude is sold through AWS or Google Cloud, then records the cloud partner cut as an expense, while OpenAI books only the portion it keeps on some partner mediated sales through Microsoft. That means two companies can generate the same customer spend and even similar gross profit dollars, yet show very different headline revenue.1 2 3 4 5

• This is the same basic difference between a marketplace that reports gross merchandise volume and one that reports take rate revenue. One company counts the whole checkout total, the other counts only its commission. Neither method alone says who is more profitable.1 2 3
• The partner setup matters because OpenAI has long sold through Microsoft Azure, with Microsoft keeping resell rights through 2032 and OpenAI continuing revenue share payments to Microsoft through 2030, subject to a cap. That structure makes net reporting on some partner sales economically intuitive.2 5 6
• Anthropic is more API weighted, and AWS bills Claude Platform usage through AWS Marketplace on the customer’s existing AWS invoice. That kind of cloud marketplace motion naturally creates more room for gross reporting, where partner payouts sit below revenue as cost of sales.4 7 8

As model labs spread across more cloud channels, raw revenue rankings will become less useful and take rate, gross margin, and who controls billing will matter more. The winners will be the companies that turn partner distribution into demand without giving away too much of the economics.2 4 5 7