When evaluating AI companies, focus on customer love (gross retention) and efficient acquisition over gross margins. High margins are less critical initially, as the 99%+ decline in model input costs suggests a clear path to future profitability if the core product is sticky.

Related Insights

For a true AI-native product, extremely high margins might indicate it isn't using enough AI, as inference has real costs. Founders should price for adoption, believing model costs will fall, and plan to build strong margins later through sophisticated, usage-based pricing tiers rather than optimizing prematurely.

The compute-heavy nature of AI makes traditional 80%+ SaaS gross margins impossible. Companies should embrace lower margins as proof of user adoption and value delivery. This strategy mirrors the successful on-premise to cloud transition, which ultimately drove massive growth for companies like Microsoft.

Redpoint Ventures' Erica Brescia states the current investment thesis for AI application-layer companies: disregard margins entirely for now. The focus should be on aggressive growth, raising capital, and building a brand to be seen as the category winner, even if the product is still early and unprofitable. This is a "play to win" strategy.

The current AI hype cycle can create misleading top-of-funnel metrics. The only companies that will survive are those demonstrating strong, above-benchmark user and revenue retention. It has become the ultimate litmus test for whether a product provides real, lasting value beyond the initial curiosity.

Counterintuitively, very high gross margins in a company pitching itself as "AI" can be a warning sign. It may indicate that users aren't engaging with the core, computationally expensive AI features. Lower margins can signal genuine, heavy usage of the core AI product.

In rapidly evolving AI markets, founders should prioritize user acquisition and market share over achieving positive unit economics. The core assumption is that underlying model costs will decrease exponentially, making current negative margins an acceptable short-term trade-off for long-term growth.

Unlike SaaS, where high gross margins are key, an AI company with very high margins likely isn't seeing significant use of its core AI features. Low margins signal that customers are actively using compute-intensive products, a positive early indicator.

While businesses focus on lowering customer acquisition cost (CAC), the real competitive advantage lies in maximizing LTGP. A higher LTGP allows a business to outspend competitors on customer acquisition. LTGP is about keeping customers, which has a higher ceiling for growth than just acquiring them efficiently.

Contrary to traditional software evaluation, Andreessen Horowitz now questions AI companies that present high, SaaS-like gross margins. This often indicates a critical flaw: customers are not engaging with the costly, core AI features. Low margins, in this context, can be a positive signal of genuine product usage and value delivery.

Traditional SaaS metrics like 80%+ gross margins are misleading for AI companies. High inference costs lower margins, but if the absolute gross profit per customer is multiples higher than a SaaS equivalent, it's a superior business. The focus should shift from margin percentages to absolute gross profit dollars and multiples.