This chart from SemiAnalysis highlights one of the most misunderstood aspects of the AI industry today: revenue growth does not necessarily translate into profitability.
The market often assumes that a $20-200 monthly AI subscription is an extraordinarily high-margin software product. Historically that would be true. Traditional SaaS companies might generate 70-90% gross margins because serving an additional user costs almost nothing. Frontier AI is different. Every query consumes expensive GPUs, power, networking, and inference capacity.
The chart suggests that profitability is highly sensitive to user behavior. At low utilization levels, both OpenAI and Anthropic generate exceptional gross margins. However, as users increasingly rely on AI for coding, research, agent workflows, and long-context reasoning, margins deteriorate rapidly and can even turn deeply negative.
This is particularly important because AI adoption appears to be following a familiar pattern. Most users initially experiment lightly, but power users tend to expand usage dramatically over time. The more useful models become, the more inference they consume. Ironically, better products can create margin pressure rather than margin expansion.
The chart also helps explain why the industry is racing toward usage-based pricing, rate limits, premium tiers, and agent-specific subscriptions. Unlimited access sounds attractive from a marketing perspective, but frontier reasoning models can burn enormous amounts of compute. If a small percentage of users consume orders of magnitude more tokens than average, subscription economics quickly become challenging.
From an investment perspective, the biggest takeaway is that AI may not resemble traditional software economics. The winners may not be the companies with the highest subscription growth, but the companies that can continually reduce inference costs faster than user demand grows.
This is why every frontier lab is simultaneously pursuing two objectives: building smarter models and making them dramatically cheaper to run. Intelligence improvements alone are insufficient if inference costs grow faster than monetization.
The chart also reinforces why the infrastructure layer remains so attractive. Whether OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, DeepSeek, or someone else wins the model race, every additional query ultimately translates into demand for GPUs, HBM memory, networking equipment, power infrastructure, and data center capacity.
In many ways, this chart supports a view that AI is currently experiencing a version of Jevons Paradox. Costs per token are collapsing, yet total spending continues to rise because usage is growing even faster. The economic value is increasingly shifting toward those selling compute rather than those consuming it.
The implication is straightforward: the AI leaders may eventually become extraordinarily profitable businesses, but that outcome is not guaranteed. What is guaranteed is that exploding AI usage requires exponentially more infrastructure. That is why the most obvious beneficiaries of the AI boom remain the companies supplying the picks and shovels of the ecosystem.
The question is no longer whether demand exists. The question is who ultimately captures the economic rents generated by that demand. Today, the evidence increasingly suggests that the infrastructure providers are capturing a larger share of those rents than the model providers themselves.