OpenAI Targets 2027 IPO as Sarah Friar Says It Could List Sooner

That capital reduces the immediate need to use an IPO simply to fund operations. OpenAI can instead wait for stronger revenue growth, better visibility into computing expenses or more favorable public-market conditions. Waiting does not remove the pressure to perform, but it gives management more options over when to convert a private valuation into a public one.

Anthropic has the procedural lead—but that is not the whole competition

Anthropic confidentially filed for a U.S. IPO on June 1, moving ahead of OpenAI in the formal filing process. On August 19, a prediction-market measure cited by TIME put Anthropic’s implied probability of confirming an IPO before November 1, 2026, at 92.5%. Prediction-market prices reflect trading expectations, not a guaranteed outcome.

Friar reportedly told employees not to worry if Anthropic goes public first. The distinction is important: a first listing can create publicity and a market reference point, but it does not by itself determine which company has the stronger long-term business.

The companies also present different commercial questions. Anthropic’s Claude has gained attention in enterprise adoption; one report citing the Ramp AI Index said Claude’s U.S. business adoption reached 34.4% in April, compared with 32.3% for ChatGPT. OpenAI, meanwhile, must demonstrate that the reach of ChatGPT can translate into durable subscriptions, API usage and enterprise contracts. Those are strategic descriptions, not settled verdicts about which company will ultimately win.

OpenAI’s corporate structure will matter to public investors

OpenAI’s route to an IPO is more complicated than that of a conventional startup. The organization was founded as a nonprofit in 2015 and created a capped-profit subsidiary in 2019 to attract investment while retaining its mission-oriented structure.

OpenAI later said its operating company would become a public benefit corporation while the nonprofit retained control. Reuters had previously reported on a possible restructuring that would make the business more attractive to investors, but the structure has remained a central issue in discussions about OpenAI’s future.

Before a public offering, investors would need a clear explanation of the cap table, voting rights, related-party agreements, nonprofit control and the legal mechanisms intended to protect the company’s mission. Governance clarity is not a technical footnote: it affects who controls the company and how public shareholders can evaluate management decisions.

Why Friar’s background is relevant

Friar brings public-markets experience to the process. The University of Oxford’s biography identifies her as OpenAI’s CFO and says she previously served as CEO of Nextdoor and CFO of Square. Under her leadership, Square launched its 2015 IPO.

The available public biography lists Friar as joining OpenAI in June 2024—not 2023 as sometimes stated in summaries of the IPO discussion. Her experience is relevant to financial reporting, investor communications and the practical demands of preparing a company for public scrutiny, but it does not guarantee a particular listing date or valuation.

The tests OpenAI must pass before listing

The IPO question ultimately comes down to whether OpenAI can show that its scale is economically durable. Public investors are likely to focus on:

• sustained and auditable revenue growth;
• monetization across consumer, API and enterprise products;
• the relationship between revenue and rising inference, training and infrastructure costs;
• reliable access to computing capacity; and
• stable governance during a period of intense competition and leadership change.

The race with Anthropic may determine who reaches Wall Street first, but it will not settle the larger investment case. OpenAI’s $122 billion financing gives it the option to wait for a stronger operational story. Friar’s message therefore points to a conditional timetable: 2027 is the stated destination, an earlier debut remains possible, and the quality of the business case matters more than winning the calendar.