The figure would exceed the $28.5 trillion revenue estimate from SpaceX.
Anthropic did not reply to PYMNTS’ request for comment.
Tech startups and other companies going public often give investors estimates of a total addressable market (TAM) to demonstrate their growth potential. These figures are projections of the annual revenue a company could capture if it achieved 100% market share using inputs such as industry data or bankers’ models, the WSJ report said.
We’d love to be your preferred source for news.
Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!
TAM figures have historically involved “a bit of guesswork,” according to the report, but these estimates become even more nebulous when trying to gauge how artificial intelligence adoption will affect entire industries.
For example, SpaceX called its $26.5 trillion TAM “the largest actionable” market in “human history” when it included the figure in a May filing, with most of that number attributed to AI-related opportunities, the report said.
New York University finance professor Aswath Damodaran, known as “the Dean of Valuation,” said that before SpaceX’s initial public offering (IPO) in June, the TAM the company saw in AI was “reaching the end of what’s plausible and pushing beyond,” per the report.
Anthropic is considering the full scope of work that AI models could help complete when quantifying its TAM, the report said. The $30 trillion figure would dwarf the $2.4 trillion in revenue generated last year by the 191 tech companies in the S&P 1500 last year.
Anthropic could aim to raise as much as $100 billion in its IPO, compared to SpaceX’s $86 billion, according to the report. Anthropic is also targeting a valuation of about $2 trillion, versus the $1.77 trillion valuation SpaceX reached.
Meanwhile, it was reported Sunday (Aug. 23) that Anthropic’s customers are using lower-cost alternatives to the company’s most powerful AI model. The development raises questions about Anthropic’s aggressive spending ahead of its IPO. Spending on Anthropic’s Fable 5 model has yet to exceed roughly 11% of overall expenditures on the company’s tools.
For all PYMNTS AI coverage, subscribe to the daily AI Newsletter.
Facts Only
SpaceX estimated a revenue figure of $26.5 trillion as its TAM in a May filing.
Anthropic is considering quantifying its TAM based on the full scope of work that AI models could complete.
The potential TAM for Anthropic is estimated at $30 trillion.
SpaceX's IPO funding was $86 billion.
Anthropic could target raising up to $100 billion in its IPO.
Anthropic is targeting a valuation of about $2 trillion.
Customers of Anthropic are reportedly using lower-cost alternatives to the company's most powerful AI model as of August 23.
Spending on Anthropic’s Fable 5 model has not exceeded roughly 11% of overall expenditures on company tools.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative frames market potential in terms of exponentially growing, yet inherently nebulous, projections for AI adoption across entire industries, exemplified by SpaceX's assessment. The divergence in TAM figures between the two entities—SpaceX's $28.5 trillion and Anthropic's considered $30 trillion—highlights the tension between established corporate valuation and speculative future potential when applying AI models to market sizing. The context surrounding these large numbers suggests that industry-wide impacts of AI adoption introduce significant uncertainty, as noted by the observation that TAM estimates historically involve "a bit of guesswork." This environment forces a focus on contrasting operational reality versus aspirational financial targets.
The juxtaposition of high valuation goals ($2 trillion for Anthropic vs. $1.77 trillion for SpaceX) and internal spending patterns (customers using alternatives despite substantial investment in the flagship model) suggests that market excitement may not perfectly align with current expenditure realities or realized potential. A crucial pattern here is the use of maximalist figures to drive narrative momentum, which can obscure necessary critical assessment of whether the reported future states are grounded in observable technological uptake rather than pure projection.
What assumptions underpin the higher valuation targets? Does focusing solely on TAM distract from analyzing the actual mechanism by which AI penetration translates into verifiable, sustainable economic capture across varied industrial sectors? How do we differentiate between a forward-looking strategic goal and an overestimation driven by competitive positioning or speculative enthusiasm?