OpenAI is using lower prices to win a larger share of companies’ AI spending, including from customers that previously relied more heavily on Anthropic. Reports of discounts at Rippling, Replit, and DataCamp suggest that price is becoming a significant factor in how businesses choose AI providers.
Discounts are changing how companies divide their AI work
Rippling CEO Parker Conrad said his company increased OpenAI’s share of its coding workload from 16 to 52 percent. Over the same period, Anthropic’s share fell from 57 to 18 percent. The figures show a substantial shift in one company’s usage, though they do not establish how every customer is allocating its AI work.
Replit also switched after OpenAI offered more than 30 percent off a contract worth over $100 million a year. The reported offer illustrates how large enterprise agreements can make negotiated pricing a decisive part of choosing a provider.
At DataCamp, CEO Jonathan Cornelissen said OpenAI’s pricing reduced costs by 80 to 90 percent. Separately, a US bank with more than $7 billion in assets received twice as many ChatGPT seats, covering 500 employees at no extra charge. It paid under $7 per user instead of the usual $20 or more.
Lower bills can accelerate adoption
For companies weighing AI expenses, discounts can affect both which tools employees use and how widely those tools are deployed. A lower cost per user may make it easier to provide access to more staff, while reduced charges for a major contract can encourage a company to shift more of its workload to one provider.
These examples point to a competitive strategy built partly on price. When several providers can serve a company’s needs, a sizable reduction in cost can change the balance of spending even if the company has not abandoned other tools entirely.
The reported customer changes also show why enterprise pricing matters beyond the sticker price. Seat counts, contract terms, and usage costs all shape what an organization pays and how much access it can afford.
OpenAI’s lower prices have more than one source
The article reports that OpenAI is accepting lower margins in part to gain market share. It also says the company has achieved real price reductions through its Sol and Luna model lines, attributing those cuts to more efficient models and infrastructure.
That distinction matters: a lower price can reflect a deliberate willingness to earn less on a sale, improved efficiency that reduces the cost of providing a service, or a combination of both. The source describes both market-share spending and efficiency gains as factors in OpenAI’s pricing approach.
For customers, the immediate effect is lower reported costs or broader access. For providers, the tradeoff is that competing on price can put pressure on margins, especially if discounts become necessary to retain or win large accounts.
Competition is widening beyond the two US companies
Anthropic’s growth slowed from Q2 to Q3, according to an investor memo cited in the source. The account does not say that OpenAI’s discounts alone caused that slowdown, but it places the customer shifts within a broader contest for growth.
Both companies also face price pressure from China. The source says new models by Deepseek and Kimi deliver comparable performance for a fraction of the cost. If businesses view those options as capable alternatives, the pressure to offer lower prices may reach beyond competition between OpenAI and Anthropic.
For organizations buying AI, the reported changes make cost an increasingly visible part of vendor decisions. For providers, winning business through discounts can bring customers in, but the source’s examples also highlight the financial pressure that comes with competing on price.