OpenAI has assembled the machinery for what could be one of the largest stock-market debuts by valuation. Its banking advisers are reportedly in place, and the artificial intelligence group submitted a confidential draft registration statement in June. Yet it now appears prepared to wait until 2027, according to a PitchBook late-stage company research note.

Its advisers are said to have presented a choice: list this year below $1trn, or delay and defend its $1trn target. OpenAI chose time, argued the research firm. In doing so, it may have revealed more about its price than a prospectus would.

The valuation behind the pause

Private valuations do not face the daily test of public markets. OpenAI’s reported $852bn valuation was set in a controlled funding round, not an order book drawing in thousands of investors. A $1trn IPO would demand another 17%.

That looked harder after SpaceX’s debut. Its shares surged from a $135 offer price to $225.64, then surrendered almost 35% within days. The retreat suggested a blockbuster technology listing might secure a dramatic opening, but not durable support. For OpenAI, staying power matters more than a first-day pop.

The delay therefore acts as an unofficial price signal, suggested Pitchbook. If management believed investors would readily clear the $1trn threshold, it had little reason to step back. By refusing a lower valuation, it has allowed timing, rather than price, to absorb the pressure.

Growth meets a heavy bill

OpenAI can make a case for patience. Its annualised net revenue is about $25bn, supported by roughly 900m weekly users. Advertising, commerce and enterprise products could accelerate growth.

Its reported $852bn private valuation is equivalent to approximately 34.1 times its current revenue run rate. If investors preserved that multiple, OpenAI would need annualised net revenue of about $29bn to support a $1trn valuation (see Chart 1).

That assumption is demanding. At Anthropic’s reported multiple of 20.5 times revenue, OpenAI would need almost $49bn—close to twice its current run rate. At 15 times revenue, the requirement would rise to about $67bn.

Waiting also carries a formidable cost. Pitchbook estimated operating cash burn could rise from $27bn in 2026 to $63bn in 2027, while “all-in free cash flow” may bottom near negative $110bn in 2028 (see Chart 2).

Another year as a private company would leave existing investors, new backers or lenders to finance the gap. New equity means dilution at a disputed valuation; debt adds fixed obligations to a business consuming cash at extraordinary speed.

Four Luxembourg investors have OpenAI exposure

Pitchbook records four Luxembourg-based active investors among OpenAI’s 217 active investors.

These figures describe the total size of each financing round, not the amount committed by the individual investor. The data therefore establishes exposure to OpenAI but does not reveal the size or current value of each holding.

Anthropic gains the first-mover advantage

The altered timetable hands Anthropic an advantage. Its potential October flotation could make it the first pure-play frontier AI laboratory to face public investors, establishing a live benchmark before OpenAI can set one itself.

Headline comparisons require care: OpenAI reports revenue on a net basis, while Anthropic’s $47bn run rate is presented on a gross basis. Once the figures are normalised, the apparent valuation gap narrows.

Anthropic still appears more capital-efficient and expects to show an operating profit of roughly $559m on about $10.9bn in revenues in 2Q26, sharpening questions about why OpenAI deserves a premium.

A bet on proof and timing

A 2027 prospectus could show a fuller contribution from enterprise, advertising and commerce, and make OpenAI’s spending commitments easier to defend. It could also expose the company to a weaker market, a higher burn base and a valuation anchored by Anthropic’s shares.

The $1trn ambition is not impossible, Pitchbook stressed. It is simply difficult to prove with today’s disclosures. OpenAI is betting that another year of growth will close that evidence gap faster than spending widens it. Until then, the decision to wait stands as the clearest valuation verdict available: the company believes the trillion-dollar future is more attractive than the price the market would offer now.