After ChatGPT, AI companies' share of new companies tripled; counted by the older AI tags, it rose about a fifth
Companies on the Metix AI Platform that describe themselves as AI companies, by founding year from 2010 to 2026, with where they are, what they build, their size and funding against all companies, and where the staff of the largest came from, on September 23, 2026.
- 1.63%
- of companies founded in 2023 to 2025 describe themselves as AI companies (17,871 of 1,094,649)
- 0.56%
- of those founded in 2019 to 2022 (10,553 of 1,879,163)
ChatGPT launched on November 30, 2022. Counted by only the three technical tags that predate it, the rise is 1.2 times: the class describes itself in new words (figures 01 and 02).
Of each year's new companies, the share describing themselves as AI companies
- 2010: 0.18%
- 2011: 0.21%
- 2012: 0.24%
- 2013: 0.28%
- 2014: 0.31%
- 2015: 0.35%
- 2016: 0.45%
- 2017: 0.53%
- 2018: 0.58%
- 2019: 0.54%
- 2020: 0.48%
- 2021: 0.57%
- 2022: 0.69%
- 2023: 1.49%
- 2024: 1.69%
- 2025: 1.78%
- 2026: 1.70%
What is counted
- Companies
- Company records on the Metix AI Platform on September 23, 2026, by the founding year on the record (founded_year). Nonprofits, educational institutions, and government agencies are left out.
- AI company
- A company whose name has the word AI and whose tags name AI, or whose tags name deep learning, computer vision, natural language processing, large language models, or generative AI. It is how a company describes itself, not a verdict.
- How precise
- Of 215 companies the definition counts, read by hand, 77.7% make AI their product or its core; most of the rest are software and IT service houses that list AI among dozens of services, and a few are events, media, or funds. It catches about four in ten AI companies, and about the same share in 2016 to 2019, 2020 to 2022, and 2023 to 2025, so founding years compare.
- The class
- Companies founded in 2023, 2024, and 2025; 2026 covers a few months and is shown apart. ChatGPT launched on November 30, 2022; a founding year has no month, and eleven of 2022's twelve months came before the launch, so 2022 counts as before. The comparison is companies founded in 2019 to 2022.
- Shares, not counts
- Recent years are still filling in: 474,723 companies of every kind on the Platform were founded in 2023, and 308,977 in 2025. Founding years are compared by the AI share of each year's new companies, since both parts fill in together.
- Not the whole world
- The Platform holds few Chinese companies: 820 of every kind founded in 2023 have a headquarters in China. The map here is the part of the world the Platform sees.
In brief
- Companies that describe themselves as AI companies are 1.63% of those founded in 2023 to 2025, against 0.56% of those founded in 2019 to 2022: 2.9 times the share. It went from 0.69% in 2022 to 1.49% in 2023 alone.
- Counted by only the three technical tags that predate the launch (deep learning, computer vision, natural language processing), the share rose 1.2 times. The class is a different kind of AI company: 21% of AI companies founded in 2025 tag AI agents, and machine learning fell from 57% of 2016's to 19%.
- The United States went from 31.4% to 38.4% of AI companies that give a country, and the San Francisco Bay Area from 8.4% to 10.4% of those that give a city; the Bay Area rises under every definition.
- Against other companies the same age, the class's AI companies more often doubled their staff (41.7% against 30.9%) and are 8.6 times as likely to have a recorded round, yet in the United States their rounds are about the same size. 17 US AI companies with 50 or fewer staff have a latest round of $50 million or more.
The rise, in new words
Part 1, Figures 01 and 02
How large the rise is under each definition the audit tested, and the words the class uses to describe itself.
01
By the technical tags that predate ChatGPT the share rose 1.2 times; by this report's definition, 2.9 times; by AI in the name, 5.7 times
The AI share of companies founded in 2023 to 2025, divided by the same share for 2019 to 2022; the dashed line at 1× is no change
Three older technical tags 1.2 times; Four broad tags 1.6 times; Five technical tags 2.0 times; Nine loose tags 2.2 times; This report's definition 2.9 times; AI in the company name 5.7 times
- Three older technical tagsdeep learning, computer vision, NLP1.2×
- Four broad tagsunderstates: catches fewer new AI companies1.6×
- Five technical tagsthe three, plus generative AI and LLMs2.0×
- Nine loose tags43% precise2.2×
- This report's definition78% precise, same catch in every era2.9×
- AI in the company nameoverstates: new companies put AI in the name5.7×
What it shows
This report's definition gives 2.9 times: 0.56% to 1.63%. The name-only definition overstates the rise, because new companies put AI in their names more often; the four broad tags understate it, because they catch a smaller share of new AI companies. The three older technical tags barely moved, because the class mostly describes itself with new words: generative AI, language models, agents (figure 02). The audit finds this report's definition catches about the same share of AI companies in every era, so its rise is the one to use.
Method and limits
Every definition was audited on whole slices read by hand, never the top of a search. Precision is the share of companies read that make AI their product or its core. The three technical tags use only words that predate the launch, so neither new vocabulary nor naming fashion can drive them.
Source: Metix AI Platform, companies, 2026-09-23.
Queriesdefinition.json · cohorts.json
{ "note": "Who counts as an AI company. A company counts when its type is not Nonprofit, Educational, or Government Agency, and either its name carries the word AI and its keywords match one of the loose AI terms, or its keywords match one of the five technical terms. The Platform matches a term word by word, in any order, and ignores case; keywords is a list of tags, and a term can be matched by words from different tags. Every count in this case uses this definition unless a file says otherwise.", "exclude_types": [ "Nonprofit", "Educational", "Government Agency" ], "name_word": "AI", "loose_terms": [ "AI", "artificial intelligence", "generative AI", "machine learning", "large language models", "LLM", "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing" ], "technical_terms": [ "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing", "large language models", "generative AI" ], "where": { "all": [ { "not": { "field": "type", "in": [ "Nonprofit", "Educational", "Government Agency" ] } }, { "any": [ { "all": [ { "field": "name", "match": "AI" }, { "any": [ { "field": "keywords", "match": "AI" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "artificial intelligence" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "generative AI" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "machine learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "large language models" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "LLM" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "deep learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "computer vision" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "natural language processing" } ] } ] }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "deep learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "computer vision" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "natural language processing" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "large language models" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "generative AI" } ] } ] }, "comparisons": { "probe": { "terms": [ "artificial intelligence", "generative AI", "machine learning", "large language models" ], "note": "The definition of the feasibility probe: any of four keyword terms. Counted per founding year beside the main definition in wave.json." }, "loose": { "terms_from": "loose_terms", "note": "Any of the nine loose terms. The population the definition audit sampled from." }, "name_path": { "note": "Only the first branch of the definition: the name carries AI and the keywords match a loose term, types excluded as above." }, "technical_neutral": { "terms": [ "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing" ], "note": "The technical branch alone with the three terms that were in use long before 2022, types excluded as above. No name and no post-2022 vocabulary enters it, so a naming fashion or a new word cannot drive its rise." }, "technical": { "terms_from": "technical_terms", "note": "The technical branch alone with all five terms, types excluded as above." } }, "tests": { "eq_vs_match": "keywords is a free-text field, so eq behaves like match. Among companies founded in 2023, every pair below counted the same with eq and with match, in any case: artificial intelligence 11,866; machine learning 4,676; generative ai 2,716; llm 837; large language models 329; ai agents 1,125; AI 24,847; deep learning 635; computer vision 709; natural language processing 525; AI agent 480. Tag capitalisation therefore does not matter and no exact-tag test is possible. There is no stemming: AI agents 1,125 against AI agent 480.", "cross_tag": "Because words may come from different tags, the loose terms pick up companies whose tags never say the phrase: a company tagged deep technology innovation and e-learning matched deep learning, and a repair service tagged washing machine repair and learning system matched machine learning. Both were found in the audit reads.", "website": "website match ai finds nothing, even for sites under the .ai domain: 0 in a slice where 7 of 47 companies have one. A web address is stored as one word, so a domain cannot be used. name match AI finds AI as a separate word only (Mistral AI, not KolateAI).", "sizes": "Among companies founded in 2023, the probe definition counts 15,213, the loose terms 29,821, and the loose terms without a headcount 3,153." }, "audit": { "method": "Records were read in whole slices, never from the top of a search, because Search ranks by match quality. A slice is every match of the definition being audited in one founding year with linkedin_followers in a narrow window chosen so the slice held 15 to 50 companies, one slice per founding year from 2016 to 2025. Each company was classified by hand from its name, industry, and tags (there is no description field): Y, AI is the product or the service; V, AI is named as part of the core product in another field (an AI radiology tool, an AI-powered insurance valuation app); G, a generalist software house, agency, or consultancy that lists AI among many services, or a business where AI is incidental; N, AI is peripheral or absent, or the record is not a company (a student club, an association, an event, a journal, a fund). An AI company is Y or V.", "fit": { "population": "loose terms", "read": 325, "labels": { "Y": 87, "V": 52, "G": 75, "N": 111 }, "precision": { "loose terms": "139 of 325 (42.8%)", "probe definition": "91 of 181 (50.3%)", "artificial intelligence alone": "72 of 135 (53.3%)", "AI alone": "118 of 256 (46.1%)", "name path": "31 of 32 (96.9%)", "definition": "58 of 65 (89.2%)" }, "capture": "Of the 139 AI companies among the loose-term matches read, the definition keeps 58 (41.7%): 17 of 40 founded 2016 to 2019, 15 of 34 founded 2020 to 2022, and 26 of 65 founded 2023 to 2025, so the share it keeps does not change much with founding year. The name path alone keeps 5 of 40, 8 of 34, and 18 of 65, which rises with founding year because newer companies put AI in their names; that is why the name is not used alone.", "note": "Rules that reach 90% on these reads either keep only the name path (a naming fashion) or were tuned to these 325 records. The definition was fixed after this step and then audited again on fresh reads (validation)." }, "validation": { "population": "the definition", "read": 215, "slices": "One per founding year 2016 to 2025, 16 to 28 companies each, none of them read in the fit step.", "labels": { "Y": 116, "V": 51, "G": 29, "N": 19 }, "precision": "167 of 215 (77.7%) are AI companies; 116 (54.0%) sell AI itself.", "by_era": { "2016-2019": "69 of 89 (77.5%)", "2020-2022": "46 of 62 (74.2%)", "2023-2025": "52 of 64 (81.3%)" }, "by_branch": { "name path": "61 of 71 (85.9%)", "technical terms without the name": "106 of 144 (73.6%)" }, "misses": "G: software houses and agencies that list generative AI or computer vision among many services, IT consultancies, a web host, and a marketing agency. N: two venture funds, an awards event, a news site, a tech blog, a podcast, a keynote speaker, and two education projects." }, "target": "The target was 90% of matches being AI companies. It was not met: the definition reaches 77.7% on fresh reads. Tags are written by or for each company, generalist firms list AI terms freely, and no filter on the Platform separates them; a stricter rule either keeps a third of AI companies with a bias toward recent names or was fitted to the reads it was measured on.", "false_negatives": "Of the 260 loose-term matches that the definition leaves out (read in the fit step), 81 (31.2%) are AI companies (39 Y, 42 V), mostly companies tagged only artificial intelligence, machine learning, or AI; 107 are N and 72 are G. The definition is a precise core, not a census: on these reads it keeps about 42% of AI companies.", "records": "Audit records are kept outside the repository and in data/raw/.", "false_positives": "Of the 48 non-AI companies in the fresh reads: 29 generalist firms (software houses, IT consultancies, agencies, a web host) and 19 not AI or not companies (two venture funds, an awards event, a news site, a blog, a podcast, a keynote speaker, two education projects). By industry: IT Services and IT Consulting 11, Business Consulting and Services 6, Information Technology & Services 5, Software Development 5, Technology, Information and Internet or Media 6, venture capital 2, marketing 2. They are spread out, so no single exclusion removes most of them." }, "industry_note": "The top industries inside the definition are counted in industries.json. industry is free text on the Platform, so a value is matched word by word; each candidate is counted without the candidates whose words contain its words (Software Development without IT System Custom Software Development).", "decision": "The definition was kept because it is the only candidate whose precision and catch are both flat across founding eras: on fresh reads 77.5%, 74.2%, and 81.3% of its matches are AI companies for 2016 to 2019, 2020 to 2022, and 2023 to 2025, and on the fit reads it keeps 17 of 40, 15 of 34, and 26 of 65 AI companies (about 42% each). A before and after share needs both to hold still. The probe's four terms become more precise and catch fewer AI companies in later years (precision 43%, 48%, 67%; catch 90%, 74%, 46%), so they understate the rise (1.60 times); the name path catches more in later years (5 of 40, 8 of 34, 18 of 65), so it overstates it (5.69 times). The two bracket the definition's 2.91 times. Its precision is 77.7% on fresh reads, below the 90% target.", "candidates": [ { "rule": "loose: any of the nine loose terms", "class_count": 85823, "precision": "139 of 325 (42.8%)", "catch": "100%", "by_era": "40/119, 34/86, 65/120" }, { "rule": "probe: artificial intelligence, generative AI, machine learning, large language models", "class_count": 38156, "precision": "91 of 181 (50.3%)", "catch": "65%", "by_era": "36/84, 25/52, 30/45" }, { "rule": "keywords AI", "count_2023": 24847, "precision": "118 of 256 (46.1%)", "catch": "85%", "by_era": "30/80, 27/67, 61/109" }, { "rule": "keywords artificial intelligence", "count_2023": 11866, "precision": "72 of 135 (53.3%)", "catch": "52%", "by_era": "27/59, 20/39, 25/37" }, { "rule": "keywords machine learning", "count_2023": 4676, "precision": "46 of 83 (55.4%)", "catch": "33%", "by_era": "25/46, 13/24, 8/13" }, { "rule": "artificial intelligence and machine learning", "precision": "31 of 43 (72.1%)", "catch": "22%", "by_era": "17/24, 9/12, 5/7" }, { "rule": "five technical terms, any", "precision": "32 of 42 (76.2%); 124 of 162 (76.5%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "23%", "by_era": "15/21, 7/8, 10/13" }, { "rule": "generative AI", "count_2023": 2716, "precision": "14 of 17 (82%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "deep learning", "count_2023": 635, "precision": "10 of 13 (77%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "computer vision", "count_2023": 709, "precision": "9 of 14 (64%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "natural language processing", "count_2023": 525, "precision": "7 of 7", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "LLM", "count_2023": 837, "precision": "1 of 5", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "name path: name AI, a loose term, types excluded", "class_count": 9813, "precision": "31 of 32 (96.9%); 61 of 71 (85.9%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "22%", "by_era": "fit 5/5, 8/8, 18/19; fresh 14/16, 14/19, 33/36; catch 5 of 40, 8 of 34, 18 of 65" }, { "rule": "definition (name path or five technical terms, types excluded)", "class_count": 17871, "precision": "58 of 65 (89.2%); 167 of 215 (77.7%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "42%", "by_era": "fresh 69/89, 46/62, 52/64" }, { "rule": "loose, industry Software Development or Technology, Information and Internet only", "precision": "58 of 91 (63.7%)", "catch": "42%" }, { "rule": "definition, IT service industries excluded", "precision": "50 of 57; 134 of 166 (80.7%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "36%" }, { "rule": "definition, IT service, consulting, marketing, and advertising industries excluded", "precision": "47 of 54; 125 of 148 (84.5%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "34%; loses a quarter of the definition's AI companies" }, { "rule": "name path, IT service industries excluded", "precision": "26 of 27; 53 of 59 (89.8%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "19%" }, { "rule": "keyword exclusions (blockchain, web development, digital marketing, SEO, consulting, and others) on the loose base", "precision": "at best 69%", "catch": "63%" } ], "candidates_note": "Counts are for companies founded 2023 to 2025 (class_count) or in 2023 (count_2023). Precision is the share of hand-read matches that are AI companies, from the fit reads unless marked fresh; catch is the share of the 139 AI companies among the fit reads that the rule keeps; by_era gives AI companies over reads for 2016 to 2019, 2020 to 2022, and 2023 to 2025. Rules on fewer than 20 reads are noise. keywords eq counts the same as match, so exact-tag rules cannot be built."}
{ "note": "Founding cohorts. founded_year is a year only. ChatGPT launched on 2022-11-30, eleven months into 2022, so 2022 counts as before and the class is companies founded in 2023 or later.", "years": [ 2010, 2026 ], "theme_years": [ 2016, 2026 ], "groups": { "before": { "from": 2019, "to": 2022, "label": "Founded 2019 to 2022" }, "class": { "from": 2023, "to": 2025, "label": "Founded 2023 to 2025" }, "partial": { "from": 2026, "to": 2026, "label": "Founded in 2026 so far" } }, "all_companies_note": "Every company on the Platform founded in the year, with no AI filter, as the base of the AI share. A total of 100,000 or more comes back banded, so a banded count is split into disjoint parts and added: first by size band (the nine closed values and no size), then a banded band by headcount (0, 1, 2, 3 to 4, 5 to 10, 11 or more, none), then by headquarters country (United States, any other, none). wave.json keeps the parts' sum and the number of parts.", "size_bands": [ "Myself Only", "1-10", "11-50", "51-200", "201-500", "501-1000", "1001-5000", "5001-10,000", "10,001+" ], "headcount_parts": [ [ 0, 0 ], [ 1, 1 ], [ 2, 2 ], [ 3, 4 ], [ 5, 10 ], [ 11, null ] ], "lag": { "note": "Two direct signals that the newest years are incomplete. First, how recently the records were refreshed: counts of AI companies per founding year by updated_at month. Second, how many carry a headcount at all, and one of 11 or more, since a company page gains staff after it is created. Both are counted for AI companies (below the band, no split needed).", "updated_buckets": [ { "id": "before-2026-04", "lte": "2026-03-31" }, { "id": "2026-04", "gte": "2026-04-01", "lte": "2026-04-30" }, { "id": "2026-05", "gte": "2026-05-01", "lte": "2026-05-31" }, { "id": "after-2026-05", "gte": "2026-06-01" } ] }}
02
21% of AI companies founded in 2025 tag themselves with AI agents, against 7% of those founded in 2021
Each panel: the share of AI companies founded each year whose tags name the theme, 2016 to 2026; the rule marks ChatGPT's launch; every panel runs 0 to 60%
AI agents 5% (2016), 8% (2022), 21% (2025); Generative AI 23% (2016), 40% (2022), 32% (2025); Large language models 4% (2016), 10% (2022), 10% (2025); Machine learning 57% (2016), 36% (2022), 19% (2025); Computer vision 34% (2016), 20% (2022), 9% (2025); Robotics 7% (2016), 4% (2022), 2% (2025); Health 12% (2016), 9% (2022), 6% (2025); Data and analytics 31% (2016), 18% (2022), 10% (2025)
AI agents
2016 5%2025 21%
Generative AI
2016 23%2025 32%
Large language models
2016 4%2025 10%
Machine learning
2016 57%2025 19%
Computer vision
2016 34%2025 9%
Robotics
2016 7%2025 2%
Health
2016 12%2025 6%
Data and analytics
2016 31%2025 10%
What it shows
Machine learning falls from 57% of 2016's AI companies to 19% of 2025's; generative AI peaks among companies founded in 2023, at 42%.
Method and limits
A company can carry several themes. Generative AI, large language models, and computer vision are also terms of the definition, so their level partly reflects how it was built; their movement across years still compares. Tags describe a company today, not at its founding: a company founded in 2016 that later took up generative AI carries the tag. 2026 covers a few months.
Source: Metix AI Platform, companies, 2026-09-23.
Queriesdefinition.json · themes.json
{ "note": "Who counts as an AI company. A company counts when its type is not Nonprofit, Educational, or Government Agency, and either its name carries the word AI and its keywords match one of the loose AI terms, or its keywords match one of the five technical terms. The Platform matches a term word by word, in any order, and ignores case; keywords is a list of tags, and a term can be matched by words from different tags. Every count in this case uses this definition unless a file says otherwise.", "exclude_types": [ "Nonprofit", "Educational", "Government Agency" ], "name_word": "AI", "loose_terms": [ "AI", "artificial intelligence", "generative AI", "machine learning", "large language models", "LLM", "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing" ], "technical_terms": [ "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing", "large language models", "generative AI" ], "where": { "all": [ { "not": { "field": "type", "in": [ "Nonprofit", "Educational", "Government Agency" ] } }, { "any": [ { "all": [ { "field": "name", "match": "AI" }, { "any": [ { "field": "keywords", "match": "AI" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "artificial intelligence" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "generative AI" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "machine learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "large language models" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "LLM" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "deep learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "computer vision" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "natural language processing" } ] } ] }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "deep learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "computer vision" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "natural language processing" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "large language models" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "generative AI" } ] } ] }, "comparisons": { "probe": { "terms": [ "artificial intelligence", "generative AI", "machine learning", "large language models" ], "note": "The definition of the feasibility probe: any of four keyword terms. Counted per founding year beside the main definition in wave.json." }, "loose": { "terms_from": "loose_terms", "note": "Any of the nine loose terms. The population the definition audit sampled from." }, "name_path": { "note": "Only the first branch of the definition: the name carries AI and the keywords match a loose term, types excluded as above." }, "technical_neutral": { "terms": [ "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing" ], "note": "The technical branch alone with the three terms that were in use long before 2022, types excluded as above. No name and no post-2022 vocabulary enters it, so a naming fashion or a new word cannot drive its rise." }, "technical": { "terms_from": "technical_terms", "note": "The technical branch alone with all five terms, types excluded as above." } }, "tests": { "eq_vs_match": "keywords is a free-text field, so eq behaves like match. Among companies founded in 2023, every pair below counted the same with eq and with match, in any case: artificial intelligence 11,866; machine learning 4,676; generative ai 2,716; llm 837; large language models 329; ai agents 1,125; AI 24,847; deep learning 635; computer vision 709; natural language processing 525; AI agent 480. Tag capitalisation therefore does not matter and no exact-tag test is possible. There is no stemming: AI agents 1,125 against AI agent 480.", "cross_tag": "Because words may come from different tags, the loose terms pick up companies whose tags never say the phrase: a company tagged deep technology innovation and e-learning matched deep learning, and a repair service tagged washing machine repair and learning system matched machine learning. Both were found in the audit reads.", "website": "website match ai finds nothing, even for sites under the .ai domain: 0 in a slice where 7 of 47 companies have one. A web address is stored as one word, so a domain cannot be used. name match AI finds AI as a separate word only (Mistral AI, not KolateAI).", "sizes": "Among companies founded in 2023, the probe definition counts 15,213, the loose terms 29,821, and the loose terms without a headcount 3,153." }, "audit": { "method": "Records were read in whole slices, never from the top of a search, because Search ranks by match quality. A slice is every match of the definition being audited in one founding year with linkedin_followers in a narrow window chosen so the slice held 15 to 50 companies, one slice per founding year from 2016 to 2025. Each company was classified by hand from its name, industry, and tags (there is no description field): Y, AI is the product or the service; V, AI is named as part of the core product in another field (an AI radiology tool, an AI-powered insurance valuation app); G, a generalist software house, agency, or consultancy that lists AI among many services, or a business where AI is incidental; N, AI is peripheral or absent, or the record is not a company (a student club, an association, an event, a journal, a fund). An AI company is Y or V.", "fit": { "population": "loose terms", "read": 325, "labels": { "Y": 87, "V": 52, "G": 75, "N": 111 }, "precision": { "loose terms": "139 of 325 (42.8%)", "probe definition": "91 of 181 (50.3%)", "artificial intelligence alone": "72 of 135 (53.3%)", "AI alone": "118 of 256 (46.1%)", "name path": "31 of 32 (96.9%)", "definition": "58 of 65 (89.2%)" }, "capture": "Of the 139 AI companies among the loose-term matches read, the definition keeps 58 (41.7%): 17 of 40 founded 2016 to 2019, 15 of 34 founded 2020 to 2022, and 26 of 65 founded 2023 to 2025, so the share it keeps does not change much with founding year. The name path alone keeps 5 of 40, 8 of 34, and 18 of 65, which rises with founding year because newer companies put AI in their names; that is why the name is not used alone.", "note": "Rules that reach 90% on these reads either keep only the name path (a naming fashion) or were tuned to these 325 records. The definition was fixed after this step and then audited again on fresh reads (validation)." }, "validation": { "population": "the definition", "read": 215, "slices": "One per founding year 2016 to 2025, 16 to 28 companies each, none of them read in the fit step.", "labels": { "Y": 116, "V": 51, "G": 29, "N": 19 }, "precision": "167 of 215 (77.7%) are AI companies; 116 (54.0%) sell AI itself.", "by_era": { "2016-2019": "69 of 89 (77.5%)", "2020-2022": "46 of 62 (74.2%)", "2023-2025": "52 of 64 (81.3%)" }, "by_branch": { "name path": "61 of 71 (85.9%)", "technical terms without the name": "106 of 144 (73.6%)" }, "misses": "G: software houses and agencies that list generative AI or computer vision among many services, IT consultancies, a web host, and a marketing agency. N: two venture funds, an awards event, a news site, a tech blog, a podcast, a keynote speaker, and two education projects." }, "target": "The target was 90% of matches being AI companies. It was not met: the definition reaches 77.7% on fresh reads. Tags are written by or for each company, generalist firms list AI terms freely, and no filter on the Platform separates them; a stricter rule either keeps a third of AI companies with a bias toward recent names or was fitted to the reads it was measured on.", "false_negatives": "Of the 260 loose-term matches that the definition leaves out (read in the fit step), 81 (31.2%) are AI companies (39 Y, 42 V), mostly companies tagged only artificial intelligence, machine learning, or AI; 107 are N and 72 are G. The definition is a precise core, not a census: on these reads it keeps about 42% of AI companies.", "records": "Audit records are kept outside the repository and in data/raw/.", "false_positives": "Of the 48 non-AI companies in the fresh reads: 29 generalist firms (software houses, IT consultancies, agencies, a web host) and 19 not AI or not companies (two venture funds, an awards event, a news site, a blog, a podcast, a keynote speaker, two education projects). By industry: IT Services and IT Consulting 11, Business Consulting and Services 6, Information Technology & Services 5, Software Development 5, Technology, Information and Internet or Media 6, venture capital 2, marketing 2. They are spread out, so no single exclusion removes most of them." }, "industry_note": "The top industries inside the definition are counted in industries.json. industry is free text on the Platform, so a value is matched word by word; each candidate is counted without the candidates whose words contain its words (Software Development without IT System Custom Software Development).", "decision": "The definition was kept because it is the only candidate whose precision and catch are both flat across founding eras: on fresh reads 77.5%, 74.2%, and 81.3% of its matches are AI companies for 2016 to 2019, 2020 to 2022, and 2023 to 2025, and on the fit reads it keeps 17 of 40, 15 of 34, and 26 of 65 AI companies (about 42% each). A before and after share needs both to hold still. The probe's four terms become more precise and catch fewer AI companies in later years (precision 43%, 48%, 67%; catch 90%, 74%, 46%), so they understate the rise (1.60 times); the name path catches more in later years (5 of 40, 8 of 34, 18 of 65), so it overstates it (5.69 times). The two bracket the definition's 2.91 times. Its precision is 77.7% on fresh reads, below the 90% target.", "candidates": [ { "rule": "loose: any of the nine loose terms", "class_count": 85823, "precision": "139 of 325 (42.8%)", "catch": "100%", "by_era": "40/119, 34/86, 65/120" }, { "rule": "probe: artificial intelligence, generative AI, machine learning, large language models", "class_count": 38156, "precision": "91 of 181 (50.3%)", "catch": "65%", "by_era": "36/84, 25/52, 30/45" }, { "rule": "keywords AI", "count_2023": 24847, "precision": "118 of 256 (46.1%)", "catch": "85%", "by_era": "30/80, 27/67, 61/109" }, { "rule": "keywords artificial intelligence", "count_2023": 11866, "precision": "72 of 135 (53.3%)", "catch": "52%", "by_era": "27/59, 20/39, 25/37" }, { "rule": "keywords machine learning", "count_2023": 4676, "precision": "46 of 83 (55.4%)", "catch": "33%", "by_era": "25/46, 13/24, 8/13" }, { "rule": "artificial intelligence and machine learning", "precision": "31 of 43 (72.1%)", "catch": "22%", "by_era": "17/24, 9/12, 5/7" }, { "rule": "five technical terms, any", "precision": "32 of 42 (76.2%); 124 of 162 (76.5%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "23%", "by_era": "15/21, 7/8, 10/13" }, { "rule": "generative AI", "count_2023": 2716, "precision": "14 of 17 (82%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "deep learning", "count_2023": 635, "precision": "10 of 13 (77%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "computer vision", "count_2023": 709, "precision": "9 of 14 (64%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "natural language processing", "count_2023": 525, "precision": "7 of 7", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "LLM", "count_2023": 837, "precision": "1 of 5", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "name path: name AI, a loose term, types excluded", "class_count": 9813, "precision": "31 of 32 (96.9%); 61 of 71 (85.9%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "22%", "by_era": "fit 5/5, 8/8, 18/19; fresh 14/16, 14/19, 33/36; catch 5 of 40, 8 of 34, 18 of 65" }, { "rule": "definition (name path or five technical terms, types excluded)", "class_count": 17871, "precision": "58 of 65 (89.2%); 167 of 215 (77.7%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "42%", "by_era": "fresh 69/89, 46/62, 52/64" }, { "rule": "loose, industry Software Development or Technology, Information and Internet only", "precision": "58 of 91 (63.7%)", "catch": "42%" }, { "rule": "definition, IT service industries excluded", "precision": "50 of 57; 134 of 166 (80.7%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "36%" }, { "rule": "definition, IT service, consulting, marketing, and advertising industries excluded", "precision": "47 of 54; 125 of 148 (84.5%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "34%; loses a quarter of the definition's AI companies" }, { "rule": "name path, IT service industries excluded", "precision": "26 of 27; 53 of 59 (89.8%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "19%" }, { "rule": "keyword exclusions (blockchain, web development, digital marketing, SEO, consulting, and others) on the loose base", "precision": "at best 69%", "catch": "63%" } ], "candidates_note": "Counts are for companies founded 2023 to 2025 (class_count) or in 2023 (count_2023). Precision is the share of hand-read matches that are AI companies, from the fit reads unless marked fresh; catch is the share of the 139 AI companies among the fit reads that the rule keeps; by_era gives AI companies over reads for 2016 to 2019, 2020 to 2022, and 2023 to 2025. Rules on fewer than 20 reads are noise. keywords eq counts the same as match, so exact-tag rules cannot be built."}
{ "note": "What AI companies say they build: the share of each founding year's AI companies whose keywords match any term of a theme. Themes overlap (one company can carry several), so shares do not add up. Terms are matched word by word across tags, which is why short or two-word terms that pair common words were removed after the audit.", "themes": [ { "id": "generative-ai", "terms": [ "generative AI", "GenAI", "gen AI" ] }, { "id": "llm", "terms": [ "large language models", "large language model", "LLM", "LLMs" ] }, { "id": "agents", "terms": [ "AI agents", "AI agent", "agentic" ] }, { "id": "computer-vision", "terms": [ "computer vision", "image recognition", "machine vision", "object detection", "facial recognition" ] }, { "id": "nlp", "terms": [ "natural language processing", "NLP", "natural language understanding" ] }, { "id": "machine-learning", "terms": [ "machine learning", "ML" ] }, { "id": "robotics", "terms": [ "robotics", "robot", "robots", "humanoid" ], "exclude": [ "process automation", "RPA" ] }, { "id": "data-analytics", "terms": [ "data analytics", "big data", "data science" ] }, { "id": "saas", "terms": [ "SaaS", "software as a service" ] }, { "id": "health", "terms": [ "healthcare", "health care", "health", "medical", "healthtech", "medtech" ] }, { "id": "fintech", "terms": [ "fintech" ] }, { "id": "cybersecurity", "terms": [ "cybersecurity", "cyber security" ] }, { "id": "developer-tools", "terms": [ "developer tools", "developer tool", "developer platform", "code generation" ] }, { "id": "voice", "terms": [ "speech recognition", "text to speech", "speech to text", "voice AI", "voice agents", "voice assistant", "voice assistants" ] }, { "id": "ai-infrastructure", "terms": [ "GPU", "GPUs", "inference", "MLOps", "LLMOps" ] } ], "audit": "Each theme was read in one whole slice of AI companies founded in 2024 (linkedin_followers in a window from 200, 7 to 14 companies each, 158 in all), and the tags that triggered it were checked. Changes made: robotics first took robotic process automation (4 of 8 in its slice), so robotic was dropped and process automation and RPA are excluded; fintech dropped financial technology, which matched financial markets plus information technology across tags (4 of 11); cybersecurity dropped information security and network security for the same reason (security plus information technology); developer-tools dropped devops, which marked IT service firms offering cloud and devops (6 of 14); ai-infrastructure dropped AI infrastructure, which matched any infrastructure tag plus AI (3 of 9). After the changes the slices read as intended: generative-ai, llm, agents, computer-vision, nlp, machine-learning, saas, and health tags name the theme; voice includes voice AI tags that pair voice with any AI tag (2 of 8 were chat and voice agents rather than speech products); data-analytics is broad by design.", "loose_population": "Each theme is also counted inside the loose population (any of the nine loose terms, same type exclusion), because companies that enter the definition by name alone may carry fewer technical tags."}
Where they are
Part 2, Figure 03
The headquarters countries and metros of the class, against the AI companies founded before it.
03
The class leans further to the United States: 38.4% of those that give a country, up from 31.4%
Country: the headquarters country, as a share of AI companies that give one. Metro: the headquarters metro, as a share of those that give a city. Both sorted by the class
Countries: United States 31.4% → 38.4%; India 13.3% → 12.0%; United Kingdom 6.6% → 8.2%; Canada 4.2% → 3.9%; Australia 2.4% → 2.8%; Germany 4.0% → 2.7%; United Arab Emirates 1.4% → 2.2%; France 3.0% → 2.2%; Netherlands 1.9% → 2.0%; Pakistan 1.7% → 1.6%; Singapore 1.6% → 1.5%; Spain 1.8% → 1.5%; Brazil 1.6% → 1.3%; Italy 1.6% → 1.2%. Metros: San Francisco Bay Area 8.4% → 10.4%; London 4.4% → 5.8%; New York City 4.0% → 4.4%; Bengaluru 3.2% → 2.9%; Dubai 1.2% → 1.9%; Singapore 1.8% → 1.7%; Paris 1.6% → 1.5%; Toronto 1.5% → 1.5%; Los Angeles 1.5% → 1.5%; Austin 1.3% → 1.3%; Seattle 1.1% → 1.3%; Berlin 1.2% → 1.0%; Boston and Cambridge 1.1% → 0.9%; Tel Aviv 0.9% → 0.5%
CountryScale 0 to 40%
- United States31.4% to 38.4%
- India13.3% to 12.0%
- United Kingdom6.6% to 8.2%
- Canada4.2% to 3.9%
- Australia2.4% to 2.8%
- Germany4.0% to 2.7%
- United Arab Emirates1.4% to 2.2%
- France3.0% to 2.2%
- Netherlands1.9% to 2.0%
- Pakistan1.7% to 1.6%
- Singapore1.6% to 1.5%
- Spain1.8% to 1.5%
MetroScale 0 to 12%
- San Francisco Bay Area8.4% to 10.4%
- London4.4% to 5.8%
- New York City4.0% to 4.4%
- Bengaluru3.2% to 2.9%
- Dubai1.2% to 1.9%
- Singapore1.8% to 1.7%
- Paris1.6% to 1.5%
- Toronto1.5% to 1.5%
- Los Angeles1.5% to 1.5%
- Austin1.3% to 1.3%
- Seattle1.1% to 1.3%
- Berlin1.2% to 1.0%
What it shows
The United States rose from 31.4% to 38.4%, and the United Arab Emirates from 15th to 7th. The San Francisco Bay Area is the largest metro, 8.4% to 10.4%.
Method and limits
Shares are of the companies that give a country (or a city): 17.3% of the class give no country, against 4.9% before, because new records are less complete. A metro is a checked list of city names (places.json). The Platform holds few Chinese companies, so no Chinese city is shown.
Source: Metix AI Platform, companies, 2026-09-23.
Queriesdefinition.json · cohorts.json · places.json
{ "note": "Who counts as an AI company. A company counts when its type is not Nonprofit, Educational, or Government Agency, and either its name carries the word AI and its keywords match one of the loose AI terms, or its keywords match one of the five technical terms. The Platform matches a term word by word, in any order, and ignores case; keywords is a list of tags, and a term can be matched by words from different tags. Every count in this case uses this definition unless a file says otherwise.", "exclude_types": [ "Nonprofit", "Educational", "Government Agency" ], "name_word": "AI", "loose_terms": [ "AI", "artificial intelligence", "generative AI", "machine learning", "large language models", "LLM", "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing" ], "technical_terms": [ "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing", "large language models", "generative AI" ], "where": { "all": [ { "not": { "field": "type", "in": [ "Nonprofit", "Educational", "Government Agency" ] } }, { "any": [ { "all": [ { "field": "name", "match": "AI" }, { "any": [ { "field": "keywords", "match": "AI" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "artificial intelligence" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "generative AI" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "machine learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "large language models" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "LLM" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "deep learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "computer vision" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "natural language processing" } ] } ] }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "deep learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "computer vision" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "natural language processing" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "large language models" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "generative AI" } ] } ] }, "comparisons": { "probe": { "terms": [ "artificial intelligence", "generative AI", "machine learning", "large language models" ], "note": "The definition of the feasibility probe: any of four keyword terms. Counted per founding year beside the main definition in wave.json." }, "loose": { "terms_from": "loose_terms", "note": "Any of the nine loose terms. The population the definition audit sampled from." }, "name_path": { "note": "Only the first branch of the definition: the name carries AI and the keywords match a loose term, types excluded as above." }, "technical_neutral": { "terms": [ "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing" ], "note": "The technical branch alone with the three terms that were in use long before 2022, types excluded as above. No name and no post-2022 vocabulary enters it, so a naming fashion or a new word cannot drive its rise." }, "technical": { "terms_from": "technical_terms", "note": "The technical branch alone with all five terms, types excluded as above." } }, "tests": { "eq_vs_match": "keywords is a free-text field, so eq behaves like match. Among companies founded in 2023, every pair below counted the same with eq and with match, in any case: artificial intelligence 11,866; machine learning 4,676; generative ai 2,716; llm 837; large language models 329; ai agents 1,125; AI 24,847; deep learning 635; computer vision 709; natural language processing 525; AI agent 480. Tag capitalisation therefore does not matter and no exact-tag test is possible. There is no stemming: AI agents 1,125 against AI agent 480.", "cross_tag": "Because words may come from different tags, the loose terms pick up companies whose tags never say the phrase: a company tagged deep technology innovation and e-learning matched deep learning, and a repair service tagged washing machine repair and learning system matched machine learning. Both were found in the audit reads.", "website": "website match ai finds nothing, even for sites under the .ai domain: 0 in a slice where 7 of 47 companies have one. A web address is stored as one word, so a domain cannot be used. name match AI finds AI as a separate word only (Mistral AI, not KolateAI).", "sizes": "Among companies founded in 2023, the probe definition counts 15,213, the loose terms 29,821, and the loose terms without a headcount 3,153." }, "audit": { "method": "Records were read in whole slices, never from the top of a search, because Search ranks by match quality. A slice is every match of the definition being audited in one founding year with linkedin_followers in a narrow window chosen so the slice held 15 to 50 companies, one slice per founding year from 2016 to 2025. Each company was classified by hand from its name, industry, and tags (there is no description field): Y, AI is the product or the service; V, AI is named as part of the core product in another field (an AI radiology tool, an AI-powered insurance valuation app); G, a generalist software house, agency, or consultancy that lists AI among many services, or a business where AI is incidental; N, AI is peripheral or absent, or the record is not a company (a student club, an association, an event, a journal, a fund). An AI company is Y or V.", "fit": { "population": "loose terms", "read": 325, "labels": { "Y": 87, "V": 52, "G": 75, "N": 111 }, "precision": { "loose terms": "139 of 325 (42.8%)", "probe definition": "91 of 181 (50.3%)", "artificial intelligence alone": "72 of 135 (53.3%)", "AI alone": "118 of 256 (46.1%)", "name path": "31 of 32 (96.9%)", "definition": "58 of 65 (89.2%)" }, "capture": "Of the 139 AI companies among the loose-term matches read, the definition keeps 58 (41.7%): 17 of 40 founded 2016 to 2019, 15 of 34 founded 2020 to 2022, and 26 of 65 founded 2023 to 2025, so the share it keeps does not change much with founding year. The name path alone keeps 5 of 40, 8 of 34, and 18 of 65, which rises with founding year because newer companies put AI in their names; that is why the name is not used alone.", "note": "Rules that reach 90% on these reads either keep only the name path (a naming fashion) or were tuned to these 325 records. The definition was fixed after this step and then audited again on fresh reads (validation)." }, "validation": { "population": "the definition", "read": 215, "slices": "One per founding year 2016 to 2025, 16 to 28 companies each, none of them read in the fit step.", "labels": { "Y": 116, "V": 51, "G": 29, "N": 19 }, "precision": "167 of 215 (77.7%) are AI companies; 116 (54.0%) sell AI itself.", "by_era": { "2016-2019": "69 of 89 (77.5%)", "2020-2022": "46 of 62 (74.2%)", "2023-2025": "52 of 64 (81.3%)" }, "by_branch": { "name path": "61 of 71 (85.9%)", "technical terms without the name": "106 of 144 (73.6%)" }, "misses": "G: software houses and agencies that list generative AI or computer vision among many services, IT consultancies, a web host, and a marketing agency. N: two venture funds, an awards event, a news site, a tech blog, a podcast, a keynote speaker, and two education projects." }, "target": "The target was 90% of matches being AI companies. It was not met: the definition reaches 77.7% on fresh reads. Tags are written by or for each company, generalist firms list AI terms freely, and no filter on the Platform separates them; a stricter rule either keeps a third of AI companies with a bias toward recent names or was fitted to the reads it was measured on.", "false_negatives": "Of the 260 loose-term matches that the definition leaves out (read in the fit step), 81 (31.2%) are AI companies (39 Y, 42 V), mostly companies tagged only artificial intelligence, machine learning, or AI; 107 are N and 72 are G. The definition is a precise core, not a census: on these reads it keeps about 42% of AI companies.", "records": "Audit records are kept outside the repository and in data/raw/.", "false_positives": "Of the 48 non-AI companies in the fresh reads: 29 generalist firms (software houses, IT consultancies, agencies, a web host) and 19 not AI or not companies (two venture funds, an awards event, a news site, a blog, a podcast, a keynote speaker, two education projects). By industry: IT Services and IT Consulting 11, Business Consulting and Services 6, Information Technology & Services 5, Software Development 5, Technology, Information and Internet or Media 6, venture capital 2, marketing 2. They are spread out, so no single exclusion removes most of them." }, "industry_note": "The top industries inside the definition are counted in industries.json. industry is free text on the Platform, so a value is matched word by word; each candidate is counted without the candidates whose words contain its words (Software Development without IT System Custom Software Development).", "decision": "The definition was kept because it is the only candidate whose precision and catch are both flat across founding eras: on fresh reads 77.5%, 74.2%, and 81.3% of its matches are AI companies for 2016 to 2019, 2020 to 2022, and 2023 to 2025, and on the fit reads it keeps 17 of 40, 15 of 34, and 26 of 65 AI companies (about 42% each). A before and after share needs both to hold still. The probe's four terms become more precise and catch fewer AI companies in later years (precision 43%, 48%, 67%; catch 90%, 74%, 46%), so they understate the rise (1.60 times); the name path catches more in later years (5 of 40, 8 of 34, 18 of 65), so it overstates it (5.69 times). The two bracket the definition's 2.91 times. Its precision is 77.7% on fresh reads, below the 90% target.", "candidates": [ { "rule": "loose: any of the nine loose terms", "class_count": 85823, "precision": "139 of 325 (42.8%)", "catch": "100%", "by_era": "40/119, 34/86, 65/120" }, { "rule": "probe: artificial intelligence, generative AI, machine learning, large language models", "class_count": 38156, "precision": "91 of 181 (50.3%)", "catch": "65%", "by_era": "36/84, 25/52, 30/45" }, { "rule": "keywords AI", "count_2023": 24847, "precision": "118 of 256 (46.1%)", "catch": "85%", "by_era": "30/80, 27/67, 61/109" }, { "rule": "keywords artificial intelligence", "count_2023": 11866, "precision": "72 of 135 (53.3%)", "catch": "52%", "by_era": "27/59, 20/39, 25/37" }, { "rule": "keywords machine learning", "count_2023": 4676, "precision": "46 of 83 (55.4%)", "catch": "33%", "by_era": "25/46, 13/24, 8/13" }, { "rule": "artificial intelligence and machine learning", "precision": "31 of 43 (72.1%)", "catch": "22%", "by_era": "17/24, 9/12, 5/7" }, { "rule": "five technical terms, any", "precision": "32 of 42 (76.2%); 124 of 162 (76.5%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "23%", "by_era": "15/21, 7/8, 10/13" }, { "rule": "generative AI", "count_2023": 2716, "precision": "14 of 17 (82%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "deep learning", "count_2023": 635, "precision": "10 of 13 (77%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "computer vision", "count_2023": 709, "precision": "9 of 14 (64%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "natural language processing", "count_2023": 525, "precision": "7 of 7", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "LLM", "count_2023": 837, "precision": "1 of 5", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "name path: name AI, a loose term, types excluded", "class_count": 9813, "precision": "31 of 32 (96.9%); 61 of 71 (85.9%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "22%", "by_era": "fit 5/5, 8/8, 18/19; fresh 14/16, 14/19, 33/36; catch 5 of 40, 8 of 34, 18 of 65" }, { "rule": "definition (name path or five technical terms, types excluded)", "class_count": 17871, "precision": "58 of 65 (89.2%); 167 of 215 (77.7%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "42%", "by_era": "fresh 69/89, 46/62, 52/64" }, { "rule": "loose, industry Software Development or Technology, Information and Internet only", "precision": "58 of 91 (63.7%)", "catch": "42%" }, { "rule": "definition, IT service industries excluded", "precision": "50 of 57; 134 of 166 (80.7%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "36%" }, { "rule": "definition, IT service, consulting, marketing, and advertising industries excluded", "precision": "47 of 54; 125 of 148 (84.5%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "34%; loses a quarter of the definition's AI companies" }, { "rule": "name path, IT service industries excluded", "precision": "26 of 27; 53 of 59 (89.8%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "19%" }, { "rule": "keyword exclusions (blockchain, web development, digital marketing, SEO, consulting, and others) on the loose base", "precision": "at best 69%", "catch": "63%" } ], "candidates_note": "Counts are for companies founded 2023 to 2025 (class_count) or in 2023 (count_2023). Precision is the share of hand-read matches that are AI companies, from the fit reads unless marked fresh; catch is the share of the 139 AI companies among the fit reads that the rule keeps; by_era gives AI companies over reads for 2016 to 2019, 2020 to 2022, and 2023 to 2025. Rules on fewer than 20 reads are noise. keywords eq counts the same as match, so exact-tag rules cannot be built."}
{ "note": "Founding cohorts. founded_year is a year only. ChatGPT launched on 2022-11-30, eleven months into 2022, so 2022 counts as before and the class is companies founded in 2023 or later.", "years": [ 2010, 2026 ], "theme_years": [ 2016, 2026 ], "groups": { "before": { "from": 2019, "to": 2022, "label": "Founded 2019 to 2022" }, "class": { "from": 2023, "to": 2025, "label": "Founded 2023 to 2025" }, "partial": { "from": 2026, "to": 2026, "label": "Founded in 2026 so far" } }, "all_companies_note": "Every company on the Platform founded in the year, with no AI filter, as the base of the AI share. A total of 100,000 or more comes back banded, so a banded count is split into disjoint parts and added: first by size band (the nine closed values and no size), then a banded band by headcount (0, 1, 2, 3 to 4, 5 to 10, 11 or more, none), then by headquarters country (United States, any other, none). wave.json keeps the parts' sum and the number of parts.", "size_bands": [ "Myself Only", "1-10", "11-50", "51-200", "201-500", "501-1000", "1001-5000", "5001-10,000", "10,001+" ], "headcount_parts": [ [ 0, 0 ], [ 1, 1 ], [ 2, 2 ], [ 3, 4 ], [ 5, 10 ], [ 11, null ] ], "lag": { "note": "Two direct signals that the newest years are incomplete. First, how recently the records were refreshed: counts of AI companies per founding year by updated_at month. Second, how many carry a headcount at all, and one of 11 or more, since a company page gains staff after it is created. Both are counted for AI companies (below the band, no split needed).", "updated_buckets": [ { "id": "before-2026-04", "lte": "2026-03-31" }, { "id": "2026-04", "gte": "2026-04-01", "lte": "2026-04-30" }, { "id": "2026-05", "gte": "2026-05-01", "lte": "2026-05-31" }, { "id": "after-2026-05", "gte": "2026-06-01" } ] }}
{ "note": "Where the companies are, by headquarters. headquarters.country takes an English name and is compared whole; headquarters.city is matched word by word, so every metro is a country, a list of city names, and where a name is ambiguous a state that is either the one named or missing. A metro count is a count of companies whose headquarters city is in the list; companies with no city are in no metro, so every metro share is of the whole cohort and the share with a city is published beside it.", "countries": [ "United States", "India", "United Kingdom", "Canada", "Germany", "France", "Netherlands", "Spain", "Italy", "Brazil", "Australia", "Singapore", "United Arab Emirates", "Israel", "Switzerland", "Sweden", "Turkey", "Pakistan", "Hong Kong", "China", "Japan", "South Korea", "Nigeria", "South Africa", "Mexico", "Poland", "Portugal", "Ireland", "Belgium", "Denmark", "Finland", "Norway", "Austria", "Estonia", "Ukraine", "Romania", "Indonesia", "Vietnam", "Philippines", "Malaysia", "Bangladesh", "Egypt", "Kenya", "Saudi Arabia", "Argentina", "Colombia", "Chile", "New Zealand", "Greece", "Czech Republic", "Taiwan", "Thailand", "Lithuania", "Morocco", "Ghana", "Sri Lanka", "Nepal", "Qatar", "Luxembourg", "Cyprus" ], "countries_note": "Candidates for the top 15, drawn from every country seen in the audit reads and the larger markets. Each is counted; the top 15 of each cohort are published and the rest is the cohort's companies with a country minus those 15. fetch.py checks that the candidates it did not publish, and the companies in no candidate country, are each below the 15th, so no country outside the list could have ranked.", "china_note": "Chinese companies are thin on the Platform: among AI companies founded 2023 to 2025, 19 are headquartered in China and 3 each in Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen (exploration counts). coverage in countries.json counts all companies headquartered in China per founding year for scale.", "metros": [ { "id": "sf-bay-area", "country": "United States", "state": "California", "cities": [ "San Francisco", "Palo Alto", "Mountain View", "Menlo Park", "Redwood City", "San Mateo", "Sunnyvale", "Santa Clara", "San Jose", "Cupertino", "Berkeley", "Oakland", "Fremont", "Burlingame", "Los Altos", "Foster City", "San Bruno", "Emeryville", "Milpitas", "Pleasanton", "San Carlos", "Belmont", "Los Gatos", "Campbell", "Walnut Creek", "Alameda", "Hayward", "San Ramon", "Livermore", "Union City", "Millbrae", "Saratoga", "Atherton", "Woodside", "Half Moon Bay", "Daly City", "San Leandro", "San Rafael", "Mill Valley", "Sausalito", "Novato" ], "note": "South San Francisco is matched by San Francisco. A city in cities counts when the state is California or missing (165 of the 891 class companies in San Francisco have no state); a city in strict_cities, a name shared with places elsewhere in the United States, counts only with the state.", "strict_cities": [ "Dublin", "Newark", "Richmond", "Albany" ] }, { "id": "new-york-city", "country": "United States", "state": "New York", "cities": [ "New York", "Brooklyn", "Manhattan", "Queens", "Bronx", "Staten Island", "Long Island City" ], "note": "New York also matches New York City. 110 of the 541 class companies in New York have no state, so a missing state is kept." }, { "id": "london", "country": "United Kingdom", "cities": [ "London" ] }, { "id": "paris", "country": "France", "cities": [ "Paris" ] }, { "id": "berlin", "country": "Germany", "cities": [ "Berlin" ] }, { "id": "toronto", "country": "Canada", "cities": [ "Toronto" ] }, { "id": "bengaluru", "country": "India", "cities": [ "Bengaluru", "Bangalore" ], "note": "Both spellings are in use: 211 and 169 class companies." }, { "id": "tel-aviv", "country": "Israel", "cities": [ "Tel Aviv", "Tel-Aviv" ], "note": "Tel Aviv-Yafo is matched by Tel Aviv." }, { "id": "singapore", "country": "Singapore", "cities": null, "note": "A city-state: the whole country, because only 55 of its 221 class companies give Singapore as the city." }, { "id": "beijing", "country": "China", "cities": [ "Beijing" ] }, { "id": "shanghai", "country": "China", "cities": [ "Shanghai" ] }, { "id": "shenzhen", "country": "China", "cities": [ "Shenzhen" ] }, { "id": "hangzhou", "country": "China", "cities": [ "Hangzhou" ] }, { "id": "seattle", "country": "United States", "state": "Washington", "cities": [ "Seattle", "Bellevue", "Redmond", "Kirkland" ] }, { "id": "boston", "country": "United States", "state": "Massachusetts", "cities": [ "Boston", "Somerville" ], "note": "Cambridge needs the state, to leave out Cambridge in England.", "strict_cities": [ "Cambridge" ] }, { "id": "austin", "country": "United States", "state": "Texas", "cities": [ "Austin" ] }, { "id": "los-angeles", "country": "United States", "state": "California", "cities": [ "Los Angeles", "Santa Monica", "Culver City", "Pasadena", "Burbank", "Beverly Hills", "West Hollywood", "Playa Vista", "El Segundo" ], "strict_cities": [ "Venice" ] }, { "id": "dubai", "country": "United Arab Emirates", "cities": [ "Dubai" ] } ], "metros_rule": "A company is in a metro when its headquarters.country is the metro's country and its headquarters.city matches one of cities with headquarters.state matching the metro's state or missing, or one of strict_cities with the state. A metro with no state takes the city in its country. The metros do not overlap."}
Size and money
Part 3, Figures 04 to 06
Staff growth and funding against other companies founded in the same years, and the small teams with large rounds.
04
41.7% of the class's AI companies doubled their staff in a year, against 30.9% of other companies the same age
Companies with 11 or more staff that state a year-on-year headcount change. Young companies grow fast anyway, so each group is set against the non-AI companies founded in the same years
Doubled in a year: the class's AI companies 41.7%, other companies 30.9%; AI companies founded 2019 to 2022 8.9%, others 8.1%. Shrank: the class's AI companies 12.4%, others 14.0%.
Doubled their staff or more in a year
- The class: AI companies1,667 companies41.7%
- The class: other companies41,166 companies30.9%
- 2019 to 2022: AI companies2,676 companies8.9%
- 2019 to 2022: other companies173,656 companies8.1%
Lost staff
- The class: AI companies1,667 companies12.4%
- The class: other companies41,166 companies14.0%
- 2019 to 2022: AI companies2,676 companies30.3%
- 2019 to 2022: other companies173,656 companies24.0%
What it shows
The class's AI companies doubled 11 points more often than other companies the same age; among companies founded in 2019 to 2022 the two groups barely differ (8.9% and 8.1%). AI companies are also less often one person: 11.9% of those founded in 2025, against 21.4% of other companies.
Method and limits
The year-on-year change is what company pages report. Companies under 11 staff are left out, where a person or two is a large percentage. Shares are of the companies that state a change.
Source: Metix AI Platform, companies, 2026-09-23.
Queriesdefinition.json · cohorts.json · measures.json
{ "note": "Who counts as an AI company. A company counts when its type is not Nonprofit, Educational, or Government Agency, and either its name carries the word AI and its keywords match one of the loose AI terms, or its keywords match one of the five technical terms. The Platform matches a term word by word, in any order, and ignores case; keywords is a list of tags, and a term can be matched by words from different tags. Every count in this case uses this definition unless a file says otherwise.", "exclude_types": [ "Nonprofit", "Educational", "Government Agency" ], "name_word": "AI", "loose_terms": [ "AI", "artificial intelligence", "generative AI", "machine learning", "large language models", "LLM", "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing" ], "technical_terms": [ "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing", "large language models", "generative AI" ], "where": { "all": [ { "not": { "field": "type", "in": [ "Nonprofit", "Educational", "Government Agency" ] } }, { "any": [ { "all": [ { "field": "name", "match": "AI" }, { "any": [ { "field": "keywords", "match": "AI" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "artificial intelligence" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "generative AI" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "machine learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "large language models" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "LLM" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "deep learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "computer vision" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "natural language processing" } ] } ] }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "deep learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "computer vision" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "natural language processing" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "large language models" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "generative AI" } ] } ] }, "comparisons": { "probe": { "terms": [ "artificial intelligence", "generative AI", "machine learning", "large language models" ], "note": "The definition of the feasibility probe: any of four keyword terms. Counted per founding year beside the main definition in wave.json." }, "loose": { "terms_from": "loose_terms", "note": "Any of the nine loose terms. The population the definition audit sampled from." }, "name_path": { "note": "Only the first branch of the definition: the name carries AI and the keywords match a loose term, types excluded as above." }, "technical_neutral": { "terms": [ "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing" ], "note": "The technical branch alone with the three terms that were in use long before 2022, types excluded as above. No name and no post-2022 vocabulary enters it, so a naming fashion or a new word cannot drive its rise." }, "technical": { "terms_from": "technical_terms", "note": "The technical branch alone with all five terms, types excluded as above." } }, "tests": { "eq_vs_match": "keywords is a free-text field, so eq behaves like match. Among companies founded in 2023, every pair below counted the same with eq and with match, in any case: artificial intelligence 11,866; machine learning 4,676; generative ai 2,716; llm 837; large language models 329; ai agents 1,125; AI 24,847; deep learning 635; computer vision 709; natural language processing 525; AI agent 480. Tag capitalisation therefore does not matter and no exact-tag test is possible. There is no stemming: AI agents 1,125 against AI agent 480.", "cross_tag": "Because words may come from different tags, the loose terms pick up companies whose tags never say the phrase: a company tagged deep technology innovation and e-learning matched deep learning, and a repair service tagged washing machine repair and learning system matched machine learning. Both were found in the audit reads.", "website": "website match ai finds nothing, even for sites under the .ai domain: 0 in a slice where 7 of 47 companies have one. A web address is stored as one word, so a domain cannot be used. name match AI finds AI as a separate word only (Mistral AI, not KolateAI).", "sizes": "Among companies founded in 2023, the probe definition counts 15,213, the loose terms 29,821, and the loose terms without a headcount 3,153." }, "audit": { "method": "Records were read in whole slices, never from the top of a search, because Search ranks by match quality. A slice is every match of the definition being audited in one founding year with linkedin_followers in a narrow window chosen so the slice held 15 to 50 companies, one slice per founding year from 2016 to 2025. Each company was classified by hand from its name, industry, and tags (there is no description field): Y, AI is the product or the service; V, AI is named as part of the core product in another field (an AI radiology tool, an AI-powered insurance valuation app); G, a generalist software house, agency, or consultancy that lists AI among many services, or a business where AI is incidental; N, AI is peripheral or absent, or the record is not a company (a student club, an association, an event, a journal, a fund). An AI company is Y or V.", "fit": { "population": "loose terms", "read": 325, "labels": { "Y": 87, "V": 52, "G": 75, "N": 111 }, "precision": { "loose terms": "139 of 325 (42.8%)", "probe definition": "91 of 181 (50.3%)", "artificial intelligence alone": "72 of 135 (53.3%)", "AI alone": "118 of 256 (46.1%)", "name path": "31 of 32 (96.9%)", "definition": "58 of 65 (89.2%)" }, "capture": "Of the 139 AI companies among the loose-term matches read, the definition keeps 58 (41.7%): 17 of 40 founded 2016 to 2019, 15 of 34 founded 2020 to 2022, and 26 of 65 founded 2023 to 2025, so the share it keeps does not change much with founding year. The name path alone keeps 5 of 40, 8 of 34, and 18 of 65, which rises with founding year because newer companies put AI in their names; that is why the name is not used alone.", "note": "Rules that reach 90% on these reads either keep only the name path (a naming fashion) or were tuned to these 325 records. The definition was fixed after this step and then audited again on fresh reads (validation)." }, "validation": { "population": "the definition", "read": 215, "slices": "One per founding year 2016 to 2025, 16 to 28 companies each, none of them read in the fit step.", "labels": { "Y": 116, "V": 51, "G": 29, "N": 19 }, "precision": "167 of 215 (77.7%) are AI companies; 116 (54.0%) sell AI itself.", "by_era": { "2016-2019": "69 of 89 (77.5%)", "2020-2022": "46 of 62 (74.2%)", "2023-2025": "52 of 64 (81.3%)" }, "by_branch": { "name path": "61 of 71 (85.9%)", "technical terms without the name": "106 of 144 (73.6%)" }, "misses": "G: software houses and agencies that list generative AI or computer vision among many services, IT consultancies, a web host, and a marketing agency. N: two venture funds, an awards event, a news site, a tech blog, a podcast, a keynote speaker, and two education projects." }, "target": "The target was 90% of matches being AI companies. It was not met: the definition reaches 77.7% on fresh reads. Tags are written by or for each company, generalist firms list AI terms freely, and no filter on the Platform separates them; a stricter rule either keeps a third of AI companies with a bias toward recent names or was fitted to the reads it was measured on.", "false_negatives": "Of the 260 loose-term matches that the definition leaves out (read in the fit step), 81 (31.2%) are AI companies (39 Y, 42 V), mostly companies tagged only artificial intelligence, machine learning, or AI; 107 are N and 72 are G. The definition is a precise core, not a census: on these reads it keeps about 42% of AI companies.", "records": "Audit records are kept outside the repository and in data/raw/.", "false_positives": "Of the 48 non-AI companies in the fresh reads: 29 generalist firms (software houses, IT consultancies, agencies, a web host) and 19 not AI or not companies (two venture funds, an awards event, a news site, a blog, a podcast, a keynote speaker, two education projects). By industry: IT Services and IT Consulting 11, Business Consulting and Services 6, Information Technology & Services 5, Software Development 5, Technology, Information and Internet or Media 6, venture capital 2, marketing 2. They are spread out, so no single exclusion removes most of them." }, "industry_note": "The top industries inside the definition are counted in industries.json. industry is free text on the Platform, so a value is matched word by word; each candidate is counted without the candidates whose words contain its words (Software Development without IT System Custom Software Development).", "decision": "The definition was kept because it is the only candidate whose precision and catch are both flat across founding eras: on fresh reads 77.5%, 74.2%, and 81.3% of its matches are AI companies for 2016 to 2019, 2020 to 2022, and 2023 to 2025, and on the fit reads it keeps 17 of 40, 15 of 34, and 26 of 65 AI companies (about 42% each). A before and after share needs both to hold still. The probe's four terms become more precise and catch fewer AI companies in later years (precision 43%, 48%, 67%; catch 90%, 74%, 46%), so they understate the rise (1.60 times); the name path catches more in later years (5 of 40, 8 of 34, 18 of 65), so it overstates it (5.69 times). The two bracket the definition's 2.91 times. Its precision is 77.7% on fresh reads, below the 90% target.", "candidates": [ { "rule": "loose: any of the nine loose terms", "class_count": 85823, "precision": "139 of 325 (42.8%)", "catch": "100%", "by_era": "40/119, 34/86, 65/120" }, { "rule": "probe: artificial intelligence, generative AI, machine learning, large language models", "class_count": 38156, "precision": "91 of 181 (50.3%)", "catch": "65%", "by_era": "36/84, 25/52, 30/45" }, { "rule": "keywords AI", "count_2023": 24847, "precision": "118 of 256 (46.1%)", "catch": "85%", "by_era": "30/80, 27/67, 61/109" }, { "rule": "keywords artificial intelligence", "count_2023": 11866, "precision": "72 of 135 (53.3%)", "catch": "52%", "by_era": "27/59, 20/39, 25/37" }, { "rule": "keywords machine learning", "count_2023": 4676, "precision": "46 of 83 (55.4%)", "catch": "33%", "by_era": "25/46, 13/24, 8/13" }, { "rule": "artificial intelligence and machine learning", "precision": "31 of 43 (72.1%)", "catch": "22%", "by_era": "17/24, 9/12, 5/7" }, { "rule": "five technical terms, any", "precision": "32 of 42 (76.2%); 124 of 162 (76.5%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "23%", "by_era": "15/21, 7/8, 10/13" }, { "rule": "generative AI", "count_2023": 2716, "precision": "14 of 17 (82%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "deep learning", "count_2023": 635, "precision": "10 of 13 (77%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "computer vision", "count_2023": 709, "precision": "9 of 14 (64%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "natural language processing", "count_2023": 525, "precision": "7 of 7", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "LLM", "count_2023": 837, "precision": "1 of 5", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "name path: name AI, a loose term, types excluded", "class_count": 9813, "precision": "31 of 32 (96.9%); 61 of 71 (85.9%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "22%", "by_era": "fit 5/5, 8/8, 18/19; fresh 14/16, 14/19, 33/36; catch 5 of 40, 8 of 34, 18 of 65" }, { "rule": "definition (name path or five technical terms, types excluded)", "class_count": 17871, "precision": "58 of 65 (89.2%); 167 of 215 (77.7%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "42%", "by_era": "fresh 69/89, 46/62, 52/64" }, { "rule": "loose, industry Software Development or Technology, Information and Internet only", "precision": "58 of 91 (63.7%)", "catch": "42%" }, { "rule": "definition, IT service industries excluded", "precision": "50 of 57; 134 of 166 (80.7%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "36%" }, { "rule": "definition, IT service, consulting, marketing, and advertising industries excluded", "precision": "47 of 54; 125 of 148 (84.5%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "34%; loses a quarter of the definition's AI companies" }, { "rule": "name path, IT service industries excluded", "precision": "26 of 27; 53 of 59 (89.8%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "19%" }, { "rule": "keyword exclusions (blockchain, web development, digital marketing, SEO, consulting, and others) on the loose base", "precision": "at best 69%", "catch": "63%" } ], "candidates_note": "Counts are for companies founded 2023 to 2025 (class_count) or in 2023 (count_2023). Precision is the share of hand-read matches that are AI companies, from the fit reads unless marked fresh; catch is the share of the 139 AI companies among the fit reads that the rule keeps; by_era gives AI companies over reads for 2016 to 2019, 2020 to 2022, and 2023 to 2025. Rules on fewer than 20 reads are noise. keywords eq counts the same as match, so exact-tag rules cannot be built."}
{ "note": "Founding cohorts. founded_year is a year only. ChatGPT launched on 2022-11-30, eleven months into 2022, so 2022 counts as before and the class is companies founded in 2023 or later.", "years": [ 2010, 2026 ], "theme_years": [ 2016, 2026 ], "groups": { "before": { "from": 2019, "to": 2022, "label": "Founded 2019 to 2022" }, "class": { "from": 2023, "to": 2025, "label": "Founded 2023 to 2025" }, "partial": { "from": 2026, "to": 2026, "label": "Founded in 2026 so far" } }, "all_companies_note": "Every company on the Platform founded in the year, with no AI filter, as the base of the AI share. A total of 100,000 or more comes back banded, so a banded count is split into disjoint parts and added: first by size band (the nine closed values and no size), then a banded band by headcount (0, 1, 2, 3 to 4, 5 to 10, 11 or more, none), then by headquarters country (United States, any other, none). wave.json keeps the parts' sum and the number of parts.", "size_bands": [ "Myself Only", "1-10", "11-50", "51-200", "201-500", "501-1000", "1001-5000", "5001-10,000", "10,001+" ], "headcount_parts": [ [ 0, 0 ], [ 1, 1 ], [ 2, 2 ], [ 3, 4 ], [ 5, 10 ], [ 11, null ] ], "lag": { "note": "Two direct signals that the newest years are incomplete. First, how recently the records were refreshed: counts of AI companies per founding year by updated_at month. Second, how many carry a headcount at all, and one of 11 or more, since a company page gains staff after it is created. Both are counted for AI companies (below the band, no split needed).", "updated_buckets": [ { "id": "before-2026-04", "lte": "2026-03-31" }, { "id": "2026-04", "gte": "2026-04-01", "lte": "2026-04-30" }, { "id": "2026-05", "gte": "2026-05-01", "lte": "2026-05-31" }, { "id": "after-2026-05", "gte": "2026-06-01" } ] }}
{ "size": { "field": "size", "bands": [ "Myself Only", "1-10", "11-50", "51-200", "201-500", "501-1000", "1001-5000", "5001-10,000", "10,001+" ], "note": "The headcount band on the company page, one of nine closed values; a company without one is counted as none. Bands per founding year 2016 to 2026 for AI companies." }, "growth": { "field": "headcount_growth_yoy_pct", "min_headcount": 11, "bands": [ { "id": "below-minus-20", "lt": -20 }, { "id": "minus-20-to-0", "gte": -20, "lt": 0 }, { "id": "0-to-20", "gte": 0, "lt": 20 }, { "id": "20-to-50", "gte": 20, "lt": 50 }, { "id": "50-to-100", "gte": 50, "lt": 100 }, { "id": "100-plus", "gte": 100 } ], "note": "Year-on-year change in headcount, in percent, as the Platform reports it. Counted only for companies with a headcount of 11 or more: at 10 or fewer, one hire moves the figure by 10% or more (a company going from 5 to 30 people shows 500%), and for a company founded in the last year there is no year-ago figure to compare. Companies with no growth figure are counted as not stated.", "validation": "46 records were read in two whole slices (AI companies founded in 2023 with headcount 30 to 32, and founded in 2019 with headcount 40 to 41, each with a growth figure). Every value is a plausible percentage (from -23.8 to 500), consistent with a change between two whole headcounts a year apart: 500 means a company went from 5 to 30. The year-ago base is not always the headcount field today, since the two were observed at different times. Every record in both slices was refreshed between 2026-04-21 and 2026-05-03." }, "funding": { "fields": [ "last_funding.date", "last_funding.amount" ], "note": "last_funding is the most recent funding round only: its date and amount. A company whose latest round was small but earlier rounds were large shows the small one, and a company with no known round has neither field. Rounds before a company's latest are not on the record.", "quarters": [ "2023Q1", "2026Q3" ], "amount_bands": [ { "id": "under-1m", "lt": 1000000 }, { "id": "1m-5m", "gte": 1000000, "lt": 5000000 }, { "id": "5m-20m", "gte": 5000000, "lt": 20000000 }, { "id": "20m-50m", "gte": 20000000, "lt": 50000000 }, { "id": "50m-100m", "gte": 50000000, "lt": 100000000 }, { "id": "100m-1b", "gte": 100000000, "lt": 1000000000 }, { "id": "1b-plus", "gte": 1000000000 } ], "amount_country": "United States", "currency": "Amounts are not all in US dollars, and the record has no currency field. Reading every AI company founded since 2022 with headcount 50 or less and a latest round of 50,000,000 or more (70 records) found South Korean companies of 8 to 36 people with rounds of 3,000,000,000 to 60,000,000,000, and Japanese ones of 1 to 22 people with 50,000,000 to 460,000,000: amounts in won and yen, not dollars. Amount bands and the small-team list are therefore limited to companies headquartered in the United States, where amounts read as dollars. The date fields have no such problem and cover every country.", "quarters_cut": "Latest rounds stop after 2026Q1 (3 in 2026Q2, none in 2026Q3) because the company records were last refreshed in April and May 2026. A chart ends at 2026Q1, which may itself be incomplete." }, "lean": { "note": "Small teams with big rounds: AI companies founded in 2022 or later with headcount 50 or less and a latest round of 50,000,000 or more, headquartered in the United States (see funding.currency). Counts use the definition in definition.json and, for comparison, the loose terms. The list reads every company that matches the loose terms, so no AI company is missed by the stricter definition, and keeps a company only when it passes the checks below.", "founded_from": 2022, "headcount_max": 50, "amount_min": 50000000, "also_counted": { "headcount_max": [ 10, 50, 100 ], "amount_min": [ 50000000, 100000000 ] }, "checks": [ "The round is dated no earlier than the founding year; a round dated before the company was founded means the founding year or the round belongs to another company.", "The amount is below 1,000,000,000; a round of a billion dollars or more for a team of 50 or fewer was treated as a data error unless a public source was checked, and none was.", "The tags make AI the product or part of the core product (Y or V in definition.json); companies that name AI once among other tags are left out.", "The record is a company, not a domain listing or a page for sale." ], "excluded": { "HOMI AI": "a 1,200,000,000 round for a team of 7: amount taken as a data error", "Lightwheel": "a 1,000,000,000 round for a team of 35: amount taken as a data error", "PRINS AI TECHNOLOGY LTD": "a domain listing for sale, one employee", "Rebellion Defense": "the round (2021) predates the founding year on the record (2025)", "LootMogul": "a sports and gaming platform; AI is one tag among many", "Moonwalk Biosciences": "an epigenetics biotech; AI is one tag among many", "Empress Therapeutics": "a drug discovery biotech; no tag names AI as its method", "Real Messenger": "a real estate messaging app; AI is one tag among many" } }, "industries": { "candidates": [ "Software Development", "Technology, Information and Internet", "IT Services and IT Consulting", "Information Technology & Services", "Business Consulting and Services", "Technology, Information and Media", "IT System Custom Software Development", "Research Services", "Hospitals and Health Care", "Financial Services", "Marketing Services", "Advertising Services", "E-Learning Providers", "Data Infrastructure and Analytics", "Computer and Network Security", "Biotechnology Research", "Professional Training and Coaching", "Robotics Engineering", "Business Intelligence Platforms", "Human Resources Services", "Staffing and Recruiting", "Medical Equipment Manufacturing" ], "note": "industry is free text on the Platform (over three hundred values), matched word by word. Each candidate is counted without the candidates whose words include all of its words, so Software Development leaves out IT System Custom Software Development; a longer value outside the list that contains a candidate's words is still counted with it. Candidates are the industries most common in the audit reads; the rest is the cohort minus the listed rows, and companies with no industry are part of it." }, "controls": { "note": "The growth, funding coverage, US amount, and size measures repeated for every company of the same types (Nonprofit, Educational, and Government Agency excluded) with no AI filter, written to controls.json beside the AI figures and all minus AI. Cohort totals are counted one founding year at a time and split when banded." }}
05
The class's AI companies are 8.6 times as likely as other new companies to have a recorded round, but in the United States the rounds are about the same size
Recorded round: companies with a dated latest round, as a share of each group. Amounts: the latest round of the class's United States companies, as a share of those with an amount
Recorded round: the class's AI companies 11.3%, others 1.3%; 2019 to 2022 AI companies 25.1%, others 2.9%. Amounts: Under $1 million 43.1% / 45.3%; $1 to $5 million 27.2% / 28.6%; $5 to $20 million 19.8% / 16.9%; $20 to $50 million 5.3% / 4.7%; $50 to $100 million 2.0% / 1.9%; $100 million to $1 billion 2.2% / 2.3%; $1 billion or more 0.5% / 0.3%
Has a recorded round
- The class: AI companies11.3%
- The class: other companies1.3%
- 2019 to 2022: AI companies25.1%
- 2019 to 2022: other companies2.9%
United States, the class, latest roundScale 0 to 50%
- Under $1 million43.1%, other companies 45.3%
- $1 to $5 million27.2%, other companies 28.6%
- $5 to $20 million19.8%, other companies 16.9%
- $20 to $50 million5.3%, other companies 4.7%
- $50 to $100 million2.0%, other companies 1.9%
- $100 million to $1 billion2.2%, other companies 2.3%
- $1 billion or more0.5%, other companies 0.3%
What it shows
11.3% of the class's AI companies have a dated latest round, against 1.3% of other companies. In the United States, more than four in ten in both groups last raised under $1 million (43.1% and 45.3%).
Method and limits
The latest round only: earlier rounds are not on the record. The record has no currency, and amounts outside the United States are often in local currency (won, yen), so amounts compare United States companies only. Records were refreshed in April and May 2026, so later rounds are not on the record yet.
Source: Metix AI Platform, companies, 2026-09-23.
Queriesdefinition.json · cohorts.json · measures.json
{ "note": "Who counts as an AI company. A company counts when its type is not Nonprofit, Educational, or Government Agency, and either its name carries the word AI and its keywords match one of the loose AI terms, or its keywords match one of the five technical terms. The Platform matches a term word by word, in any order, and ignores case; keywords is a list of tags, and a term can be matched by words from different tags. Every count in this case uses this definition unless a file says otherwise.", "exclude_types": [ "Nonprofit", "Educational", "Government Agency" ], "name_word": "AI", "loose_terms": [ "AI", "artificial intelligence", "generative AI", "machine learning", "large language models", "LLM", "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing" ], "technical_terms": [ "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing", "large language models", "generative AI" ], "where": { "all": [ { "not": { "field": "type", "in": [ "Nonprofit", "Educational", "Government Agency" ] } }, { "any": [ { "all": [ { "field": "name", "match": "AI" }, { "any": [ { "field": "keywords", "match": "AI" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "artificial intelligence" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "generative AI" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "machine learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "large language models" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "LLM" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "deep learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "computer vision" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "natural language processing" } ] } ] }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "deep learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "computer vision" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "natural language processing" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "large language models" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "generative AI" } ] } ] }, "comparisons": { "probe": { "terms": [ "artificial intelligence", "generative AI", "machine learning", "large language models" ], "note": "The definition of the feasibility probe: any of four keyword terms. Counted per founding year beside the main definition in wave.json." }, "loose": { "terms_from": "loose_terms", "note": "Any of the nine loose terms. The population the definition audit sampled from." }, "name_path": { "note": "Only the first branch of the definition: the name carries AI and the keywords match a loose term, types excluded as above." }, "technical_neutral": { "terms": [ "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing" ], "note": "The technical branch alone with the three terms that were in use long before 2022, types excluded as above. No name and no post-2022 vocabulary enters it, so a naming fashion or a new word cannot drive its rise." }, "technical": { "terms_from": "technical_terms", "note": "The technical branch alone with all five terms, types excluded as above." } }, "tests": { "eq_vs_match": "keywords is a free-text field, so eq behaves like match. Among companies founded in 2023, every pair below counted the same with eq and with match, in any case: artificial intelligence 11,866; machine learning 4,676; generative ai 2,716; llm 837; large language models 329; ai agents 1,125; AI 24,847; deep learning 635; computer vision 709; natural language processing 525; AI agent 480. Tag capitalisation therefore does not matter and no exact-tag test is possible. There is no stemming: AI agents 1,125 against AI agent 480.", "cross_tag": "Because words may come from different tags, the loose terms pick up companies whose tags never say the phrase: a company tagged deep technology innovation and e-learning matched deep learning, and a repair service tagged washing machine repair and learning system matched machine learning. Both were found in the audit reads.", "website": "website match ai finds nothing, even for sites under the .ai domain: 0 in a slice where 7 of 47 companies have one. A web address is stored as one word, so a domain cannot be used. name match AI finds AI as a separate word only (Mistral AI, not KolateAI).", "sizes": "Among companies founded in 2023, the probe definition counts 15,213, the loose terms 29,821, and the loose terms without a headcount 3,153." }, "audit": { "method": "Records were read in whole slices, never from the top of a search, because Search ranks by match quality. A slice is every match of the definition being audited in one founding year with linkedin_followers in a narrow window chosen so the slice held 15 to 50 companies, one slice per founding year from 2016 to 2025. Each company was classified by hand from its name, industry, and tags (there is no description field): Y, AI is the product or the service; V, AI is named as part of the core product in another field (an AI radiology tool, an AI-powered insurance valuation app); G, a generalist software house, agency, or consultancy that lists AI among many services, or a business where AI is incidental; N, AI is peripheral or absent, or the record is not a company (a student club, an association, an event, a journal, a fund). An AI company is Y or V.", "fit": { "population": "loose terms", "read": 325, "labels": { "Y": 87, "V": 52, "G": 75, "N": 111 }, "precision": { "loose terms": "139 of 325 (42.8%)", "probe definition": "91 of 181 (50.3%)", "artificial intelligence alone": "72 of 135 (53.3%)", "AI alone": "118 of 256 (46.1%)", "name path": "31 of 32 (96.9%)", "definition": "58 of 65 (89.2%)" }, "capture": "Of the 139 AI companies among the loose-term matches read, the definition keeps 58 (41.7%): 17 of 40 founded 2016 to 2019, 15 of 34 founded 2020 to 2022, and 26 of 65 founded 2023 to 2025, so the share it keeps does not change much with founding year. The name path alone keeps 5 of 40, 8 of 34, and 18 of 65, which rises with founding year because newer companies put AI in their names; that is why the name is not used alone.", "note": "Rules that reach 90% on these reads either keep only the name path (a naming fashion) or were tuned to these 325 records. The definition was fixed after this step and then audited again on fresh reads (validation)." }, "validation": { "population": "the definition", "read": 215, "slices": "One per founding year 2016 to 2025, 16 to 28 companies each, none of them read in the fit step.", "labels": { "Y": 116, "V": 51, "G": 29, "N": 19 }, "precision": "167 of 215 (77.7%) are AI companies; 116 (54.0%) sell AI itself.", "by_era": { "2016-2019": "69 of 89 (77.5%)", "2020-2022": "46 of 62 (74.2%)", "2023-2025": "52 of 64 (81.3%)" }, "by_branch": { "name path": "61 of 71 (85.9%)", "technical terms without the name": "106 of 144 (73.6%)" }, "misses": "G: software houses and agencies that list generative AI or computer vision among many services, IT consultancies, a web host, and a marketing agency. N: two venture funds, an awards event, a news site, a tech blog, a podcast, a keynote speaker, and two education projects." }, "target": "The target was 90% of matches being AI companies. It was not met: the definition reaches 77.7% on fresh reads. Tags are written by or for each company, generalist firms list AI terms freely, and no filter on the Platform separates them; a stricter rule either keeps a third of AI companies with a bias toward recent names or was fitted to the reads it was measured on.", "false_negatives": "Of the 260 loose-term matches that the definition leaves out (read in the fit step), 81 (31.2%) are AI companies (39 Y, 42 V), mostly companies tagged only artificial intelligence, machine learning, or AI; 107 are N and 72 are G. The definition is a precise core, not a census: on these reads it keeps about 42% of AI companies.", "records": "Audit records are kept outside the repository and in data/raw/.", "false_positives": "Of the 48 non-AI companies in the fresh reads: 29 generalist firms (software houses, IT consultancies, agencies, a web host) and 19 not AI or not companies (two venture funds, an awards event, a news site, a blog, a podcast, a keynote speaker, two education projects). By industry: IT Services and IT Consulting 11, Business Consulting and Services 6, Information Technology & Services 5, Software Development 5, Technology, Information and Internet or Media 6, venture capital 2, marketing 2. They are spread out, so no single exclusion removes most of them." }, "industry_note": "The top industries inside the definition are counted in industries.json. industry is free text on the Platform, so a value is matched word by word; each candidate is counted without the candidates whose words contain its words (Software Development without IT System Custom Software Development).", "decision": "The definition was kept because it is the only candidate whose precision and catch are both flat across founding eras: on fresh reads 77.5%, 74.2%, and 81.3% of its matches are AI companies for 2016 to 2019, 2020 to 2022, and 2023 to 2025, and on the fit reads it keeps 17 of 40, 15 of 34, and 26 of 65 AI companies (about 42% each). A before and after share needs both to hold still. The probe's four terms become more precise and catch fewer AI companies in later years (precision 43%, 48%, 67%; catch 90%, 74%, 46%), so they understate the rise (1.60 times); the name path catches more in later years (5 of 40, 8 of 34, 18 of 65), so it overstates it (5.69 times). The two bracket the definition's 2.91 times. Its precision is 77.7% on fresh reads, below the 90% target.", "candidates": [ { "rule": "loose: any of the nine loose terms", "class_count": 85823, "precision": "139 of 325 (42.8%)", "catch": "100%", "by_era": "40/119, 34/86, 65/120" }, { "rule": "probe: artificial intelligence, generative AI, machine learning, large language models", "class_count": 38156, "precision": "91 of 181 (50.3%)", "catch": "65%", "by_era": "36/84, 25/52, 30/45" }, { "rule": "keywords AI", "count_2023": 24847, "precision": "118 of 256 (46.1%)", "catch": "85%", "by_era": "30/80, 27/67, 61/109" }, { "rule": "keywords artificial intelligence", "count_2023": 11866, "precision": "72 of 135 (53.3%)", "catch": "52%", "by_era": "27/59, 20/39, 25/37" }, { "rule": "keywords machine learning", "count_2023": 4676, "precision": "46 of 83 (55.4%)", "catch": "33%", "by_era": "25/46, 13/24, 8/13" }, { "rule": "artificial intelligence and machine learning", "precision": "31 of 43 (72.1%)", "catch": "22%", "by_era": "17/24, 9/12, 5/7" }, { "rule": "five technical terms, any", "precision": "32 of 42 (76.2%); 124 of 162 (76.5%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "23%", "by_era": "15/21, 7/8, 10/13" }, { "rule": "generative AI", "count_2023": 2716, "precision": "14 of 17 (82%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "deep learning", "count_2023": 635, "precision": "10 of 13 (77%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "computer vision", "count_2023": 709, "precision": "9 of 14 (64%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "natural language processing", "count_2023": 525, "precision": "7 of 7", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "LLM", "count_2023": 837, "precision": "1 of 5", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "name path: name AI, a loose term, types excluded", "class_count": 9813, "precision": "31 of 32 (96.9%); 61 of 71 (85.9%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "22%", "by_era": "fit 5/5, 8/8, 18/19; fresh 14/16, 14/19, 33/36; catch 5 of 40, 8 of 34, 18 of 65" }, { "rule": "definition (name path or five technical terms, types excluded)", "class_count": 17871, "precision": "58 of 65 (89.2%); 167 of 215 (77.7%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "42%", "by_era": "fresh 69/89, 46/62, 52/64" }, { "rule": "loose, industry Software Development or Technology, Information and Internet only", "precision": "58 of 91 (63.7%)", "catch": "42%" }, { "rule": "definition, IT service industries excluded", "precision": "50 of 57; 134 of 166 (80.7%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "36%" }, { "rule": "definition, IT service, consulting, marketing, and advertising industries excluded", "precision": "47 of 54; 125 of 148 (84.5%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "34%; loses a quarter of the definition's AI companies" }, { "rule": "name path, IT service industries excluded", "precision": "26 of 27; 53 of 59 (89.8%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "19%" }, { "rule": "keyword exclusions (blockchain, web development, digital marketing, SEO, consulting, and others) on the loose base", "precision": "at best 69%", "catch": "63%" } ], "candidates_note": "Counts are for companies founded 2023 to 2025 (class_count) or in 2023 (count_2023). Precision is the share of hand-read matches that are AI companies, from the fit reads unless marked fresh; catch is the share of the 139 AI companies among the fit reads that the rule keeps; by_era gives AI companies over reads for 2016 to 2019, 2020 to 2022, and 2023 to 2025. Rules on fewer than 20 reads are noise. keywords eq counts the same as match, so exact-tag rules cannot be built."}
{ "note": "Founding cohorts. founded_year is a year only. ChatGPT launched on 2022-11-30, eleven months into 2022, so 2022 counts as before and the class is companies founded in 2023 or later.", "years": [ 2010, 2026 ], "theme_years": [ 2016, 2026 ], "groups": { "before": { "from": 2019, "to": 2022, "label": "Founded 2019 to 2022" }, "class": { "from": 2023, "to": 2025, "label": "Founded 2023 to 2025" }, "partial": { "from": 2026, "to": 2026, "label": "Founded in 2026 so far" } }, "all_companies_note": "Every company on the Platform founded in the year, with no AI filter, as the base of the AI share. A total of 100,000 or more comes back banded, so a banded count is split into disjoint parts and added: first by size band (the nine closed values and no size), then a banded band by headcount (0, 1, 2, 3 to 4, 5 to 10, 11 or more, none), then by headquarters country (United States, any other, none). wave.json keeps the parts' sum and the number of parts.", "size_bands": [ "Myself Only", "1-10", "11-50", "51-200", "201-500", "501-1000", "1001-5000", "5001-10,000", "10,001+" ], "headcount_parts": [ [ 0, 0 ], [ 1, 1 ], [ 2, 2 ], [ 3, 4 ], [ 5, 10 ], [ 11, null ] ], "lag": { "note": "Two direct signals that the newest years are incomplete. First, how recently the records were refreshed: counts of AI companies per founding year by updated_at month. Second, how many carry a headcount at all, and one of 11 or more, since a company page gains staff after it is created. Both are counted for AI companies (below the band, no split needed).", "updated_buckets": [ { "id": "before-2026-04", "lte": "2026-03-31" }, { "id": "2026-04", "gte": "2026-04-01", "lte": "2026-04-30" }, { "id": "2026-05", "gte": "2026-05-01", "lte": "2026-05-31" }, { "id": "after-2026-05", "gte": "2026-06-01" } ] }}
{ "size": { "field": "size", "bands": [ "Myself Only", "1-10", "11-50", "51-200", "201-500", "501-1000", "1001-5000", "5001-10,000", "10,001+" ], "note": "The headcount band on the company page, one of nine closed values; a company without one is counted as none. Bands per founding year 2016 to 2026 for AI companies." }, "growth": { "field": "headcount_growth_yoy_pct", "min_headcount": 11, "bands": [ { "id": "below-minus-20", "lt": -20 }, { "id": "minus-20-to-0", "gte": -20, "lt": 0 }, { "id": "0-to-20", "gte": 0, "lt": 20 }, { "id": "20-to-50", "gte": 20, "lt": 50 }, { "id": "50-to-100", "gte": 50, "lt": 100 }, { "id": "100-plus", "gte": 100 } ], "note": "Year-on-year change in headcount, in percent, as the Platform reports it. Counted only for companies with a headcount of 11 or more: at 10 or fewer, one hire moves the figure by 10% or more (a company going from 5 to 30 people shows 500%), and for a company founded in the last year there is no year-ago figure to compare. Companies with no growth figure are counted as not stated.", "validation": "46 records were read in two whole slices (AI companies founded in 2023 with headcount 30 to 32, and founded in 2019 with headcount 40 to 41, each with a growth figure). Every value is a plausible percentage (from -23.8 to 500), consistent with a change between two whole headcounts a year apart: 500 means a company went from 5 to 30. The year-ago base is not always the headcount field today, since the two were observed at different times. Every record in both slices was refreshed between 2026-04-21 and 2026-05-03." }, "funding": { "fields": [ "last_funding.date", "last_funding.amount" ], "note": "last_funding is the most recent funding round only: its date and amount. A company whose latest round was small but earlier rounds were large shows the small one, and a company with no known round has neither field. Rounds before a company's latest are not on the record.", "quarters": [ "2023Q1", "2026Q3" ], "amount_bands": [ { "id": "under-1m", "lt": 1000000 }, { "id": "1m-5m", "gte": 1000000, "lt": 5000000 }, { "id": "5m-20m", "gte": 5000000, "lt": 20000000 }, { "id": "20m-50m", "gte": 20000000, "lt": 50000000 }, { "id": "50m-100m", "gte": 50000000, "lt": 100000000 }, { "id": "100m-1b", "gte": 100000000, "lt": 1000000000 }, { "id": "1b-plus", "gte": 1000000000 } ], "amount_country": "United States", "currency": "Amounts are not all in US dollars, and the record has no currency field. Reading every AI company founded since 2022 with headcount 50 or less and a latest round of 50,000,000 or more (70 records) found South Korean companies of 8 to 36 people with rounds of 3,000,000,000 to 60,000,000,000, and Japanese ones of 1 to 22 people with 50,000,000 to 460,000,000: amounts in won and yen, not dollars. Amount bands and the small-team list are therefore limited to companies headquartered in the United States, where amounts read as dollars. The date fields have no such problem and cover every country.", "quarters_cut": "Latest rounds stop after 2026Q1 (3 in 2026Q2, none in 2026Q3) because the company records were last refreshed in April and May 2026. A chart ends at 2026Q1, which may itself be incomplete." }, "lean": { "note": "Small teams with big rounds: AI companies founded in 2022 or later with headcount 50 or less and a latest round of 50,000,000 or more, headquartered in the United States (see funding.currency). Counts use the definition in definition.json and, for comparison, the loose terms. The list reads every company that matches the loose terms, so no AI company is missed by the stricter definition, and keeps a company only when it passes the checks below.", "founded_from": 2022, "headcount_max": 50, "amount_min": 50000000, "also_counted": { "headcount_max": [ 10, 50, 100 ], "amount_min": [ 50000000, 100000000 ] }, "checks": [ "The round is dated no earlier than the founding year; a round dated before the company was founded means the founding year or the round belongs to another company.", "The amount is below 1,000,000,000; a round of a billion dollars or more for a team of 50 or fewer was treated as a data error unless a public source was checked, and none was.", "The tags make AI the product or part of the core product (Y or V in definition.json); companies that name AI once among other tags are left out.", "The record is a company, not a domain listing or a page for sale." ], "excluded": { "HOMI AI": "a 1,200,000,000 round for a team of 7: amount taken as a data error", "Lightwheel": "a 1,000,000,000 round for a team of 35: amount taken as a data error", "PRINS AI TECHNOLOGY LTD": "a domain listing for sale, one employee", "Rebellion Defense": "the round (2021) predates the founding year on the record (2025)", "LootMogul": "a sports and gaming platform; AI is one tag among many", "Moonwalk Biosciences": "an epigenetics biotech; AI is one tag among many", "Empress Therapeutics": "a drug discovery biotech; no tag names AI as its method", "Real Messenger": "a real estate messaging app; AI is one tag among many" } }, "industries": { "candidates": [ "Software Development", "Technology, Information and Internet", "IT Services and IT Consulting", "Information Technology & Services", "Business Consulting and Services", "Technology, Information and Media", "IT System Custom Software Development", "Research Services", "Hospitals and Health Care", "Financial Services", "Marketing Services", "Advertising Services", "E-Learning Providers", "Data Infrastructure and Analytics", "Computer and Network Security", "Biotechnology Research", "Professional Training and Coaching", "Robotics Engineering", "Business Intelligence Platforms", "Human Resources Services", "Staffing and Recruiting", "Medical Equipment Manufacturing" ], "note": "industry is free text on the Platform (over three hundred values), matched word by word. Each candidate is counted without the candidates whose words include all of its words, so Software Development leaves out IT System Custom Software Development; a longer value outside the list that contains a candidate's words is still counted with it. Candidates are the industries most common in the audit reads; the rest is the cohort minus the listed rows, and companies with no industry are part of it." }, "controls": { "note": "The growth, funding coverage, US amount, and size measures repeated for every company of the same types (Nonprofit, Educational, and Government Agency excluded) with no AI filter, written to controls.json beside the AI figures and all minus AI. Cohort totals are counted one founding year at a time and split when banded." }}
06
17 US AI companies in the class have 50 or fewer staff and a latest round of $50 million or more
Grouped by the size of the latest round, newest round first within a group. Staff is what the company page reports; amounts are United States companies only, because amounts elsewhere are often in local currency
Mind Robotics, 2025, 11 to 25 staff, $250 million to $1 billion, Mar 2026; Ricursive Intelligence, 2025, 11 to 25 staff, $250 million to $1 billion, Jan 2026; Inferact, 2025, 11 to 25 staff, $100 to $250 million, Jan 2026; WhiteFiber, 2024, 26 to 50 staff, $100 to $250 million, Jan 2026; General Intuition, 2025, 26 to 50 staff, $100 to $250 million, Nov 2025; Accrual, 2024, 11 to 25 staff, $50 to $100 million, Feb 2026; Gyde, 2025, 26 to 50 staff, $50 to $100 million, Jan 2026; Arbiter, 2025, 26 to 50 staff, $50 to $100 million, Nov 2025; Majestic Labs ai, 2023, 26 to 50 staff, $50 to $100 million, Sep 2025; Titan, 2024, 26 to 50 staff, $50 to $100 million, Sep 2025; ZeroClick, 2025, 26 to 50 staff, $50 to $100 million, Sep 2025; Radical AI, 2024, 26 to 50 staff, $50 to $100 million, Aug 2025; Nous Research, 2023, 26 to 50 staff, $50 to $100 million, May 2025; Rhino.ai, 2023, 26 to 50 staff, $50 to $100 million, Jan 2025; Cortex EP, 2023, 11 to 25 staff, $50 to $100 million, Dec 2023; Essential AI, 2023, 26 to 50 staff, $50 to $100 million, Dec 2023; Kimia Therapeutics, 2023, 26 to 50 staff, $50 to $100 million, Dec 2023
$250 million to $1 billion2
- Mind RoboticsFounded 2025 · 11 to 25 staff · round Mar 2026
- Ricursive IntelligenceFounded 2025 · 11 to 25 staff · round Jan 2026
$100 to $250 million3
- InferactFounded 2025 · 11 to 25 staff · round Jan 2026
- WhiteFiberFounded 2024 · 26 to 50 staff · round Jan 2026
- General IntuitionFounded 2025 · 26 to 50 staff · round Nov 2025
$50 to $100 million12
- AccrualFounded 2024 · 11 to 25 staff · round Feb 2026
- GydeFounded 2025 · 26 to 50 staff · round Jan 2026
- ArbiterFounded 2025 · 26 to 50 staff · round Nov 2025
- Majestic Labs aiFounded 2023 · 26 to 50 staff · round Sep 2025
- TitanFounded 2024 · 26 to 50 staff · round Sep 2025
- ZeroClickFounded 2025 · 26 to 50 staff · round Sep 2025
- Radical AIFounded 2024 · 26 to 50 staff · round Aug 2025
- Nous ResearchFounded 2023 · 26 to 50 staff · round May 2025
- Rhino.aiFounded 2023 · 26 to 50 staff · round Jan 2025
- Cortex EPFounded 2023 · 11 to 25 staff · round Dec 2023
- Essential AIFounded 2023 · 26 to 50 staff · round Dec 2023
- Kimia TherapeuticsFounded 2023 · 26 to 50 staff · round Dec 2023
What it shows
The list runs from model labs and AI infrastructure to AI drug discovery and business software. 4 more were founded in 2022, just before the launch: Black Ore, Deep Apple Therapeutics, Protect AI, Slingshot AI.
Method and limits
The loose tags find 29 US companies founded since 2022 that fit, and every record was read; this report's definition alone finds 14 of them. 8 were dropped by written rules: an amount out of all proportion to the team (taken as a data error), a round dated before the founding year, AI as one tag among many, or a domain for sale. The latest round is the latest only, not the total raised. Names refer to the companies only.
Source: Metix AI Platform, companies, 2026-09-23.
Queriesdefinition.json · measures.json
{ "note": "Who counts as an AI company. A company counts when its type is not Nonprofit, Educational, or Government Agency, and either its name carries the word AI and its keywords match one of the loose AI terms, or its keywords match one of the five technical terms. The Platform matches a term word by word, in any order, and ignores case; keywords is a list of tags, and a term can be matched by words from different tags. Every count in this case uses this definition unless a file says otherwise.", "exclude_types": [ "Nonprofit", "Educational", "Government Agency" ], "name_word": "AI", "loose_terms": [ "AI", "artificial intelligence", "generative AI", "machine learning", "large language models", "LLM", "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing" ], "technical_terms": [ "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing", "large language models", "generative AI" ], "where": { "all": [ { "not": { "field": "type", "in": [ "Nonprofit", "Educational", "Government Agency" ] } }, { "any": [ { "all": [ { "field": "name", "match": "AI" }, { "any": [ { "field": "keywords", "match": "AI" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "artificial intelligence" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "generative AI" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "machine learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "large language models" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "LLM" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "deep learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "computer vision" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "natural language processing" } ] } ] }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "deep learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "computer vision" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "natural language processing" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "large language models" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "generative AI" } ] } ] }, "comparisons": { "probe": { "terms": [ "artificial intelligence", "generative AI", "machine learning", "large language models" ], "note": "The definition of the feasibility probe: any of four keyword terms. Counted per founding year beside the main definition in wave.json." }, "loose": { "terms_from": "loose_terms", "note": "Any of the nine loose terms. The population the definition audit sampled from." }, "name_path": { "note": "Only the first branch of the definition: the name carries AI and the keywords match a loose term, types excluded as above." }, "technical_neutral": { "terms": [ "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing" ], "note": "The technical branch alone with the three terms that were in use long before 2022, types excluded as above. No name and no post-2022 vocabulary enters it, so a naming fashion or a new word cannot drive its rise." }, "technical": { "terms_from": "technical_terms", "note": "The technical branch alone with all five terms, types excluded as above." } }, "tests": { "eq_vs_match": "keywords is a free-text field, so eq behaves like match. Among companies founded in 2023, every pair below counted the same with eq and with match, in any case: artificial intelligence 11,866; machine learning 4,676; generative ai 2,716; llm 837; large language models 329; ai agents 1,125; AI 24,847; deep learning 635; computer vision 709; natural language processing 525; AI agent 480. Tag capitalisation therefore does not matter and no exact-tag test is possible. There is no stemming: AI agents 1,125 against AI agent 480.", "cross_tag": "Because words may come from different tags, the loose terms pick up companies whose tags never say the phrase: a company tagged deep technology innovation and e-learning matched deep learning, and a repair service tagged washing machine repair and learning system matched machine learning. Both were found in the audit reads.", "website": "website match ai finds nothing, even for sites under the .ai domain: 0 in a slice where 7 of 47 companies have one. A web address is stored as one word, so a domain cannot be used. name match AI finds AI as a separate word only (Mistral AI, not KolateAI).", "sizes": "Among companies founded in 2023, the probe definition counts 15,213, the loose terms 29,821, and the loose terms without a headcount 3,153." }, "audit": { "method": "Records were read in whole slices, never from the top of a search, because Search ranks by match quality. A slice is every match of the definition being audited in one founding year with linkedin_followers in a narrow window chosen so the slice held 15 to 50 companies, one slice per founding year from 2016 to 2025. Each company was classified by hand from its name, industry, and tags (there is no description field): Y, AI is the product or the service; V, AI is named as part of the core product in another field (an AI radiology tool, an AI-powered insurance valuation app); G, a generalist software house, agency, or consultancy that lists AI among many services, or a business where AI is incidental; N, AI is peripheral or absent, or the record is not a company (a student club, an association, an event, a journal, a fund). An AI company is Y or V.", "fit": { "population": "loose terms", "read": 325, "labels": { "Y": 87, "V": 52, "G": 75, "N": 111 }, "precision": { "loose terms": "139 of 325 (42.8%)", "probe definition": "91 of 181 (50.3%)", "artificial intelligence alone": "72 of 135 (53.3%)", "AI alone": "118 of 256 (46.1%)", "name path": "31 of 32 (96.9%)", "definition": "58 of 65 (89.2%)" }, "capture": "Of the 139 AI companies among the loose-term matches read, the definition keeps 58 (41.7%): 17 of 40 founded 2016 to 2019, 15 of 34 founded 2020 to 2022, and 26 of 65 founded 2023 to 2025, so the share it keeps does not change much with founding year. The name path alone keeps 5 of 40, 8 of 34, and 18 of 65, which rises with founding year because newer companies put AI in their names; that is why the name is not used alone.", "note": "Rules that reach 90% on these reads either keep only the name path (a naming fashion) or were tuned to these 325 records. The definition was fixed after this step and then audited again on fresh reads (validation)." }, "validation": { "population": "the definition", "read": 215, "slices": "One per founding year 2016 to 2025, 16 to 28 companies each, none of them read in the fit step.", "labels": { "Y": 116, "V": 51, "G": 29, "N": 19 }, "precision": "167 of 215 (77.7%) are AI companies; 116 (54.0%) sell AI itself.", "by_era": { "2016-2019": "69 of 89 (77.5%)", "2020-2022": "46 of 62 (74.2%)", "2023-2025": "52 of 64 (81.3%)" }, "by_branch": { "name path": "61 of 71 (85.9%)", "technical terms without the name": "106 of 144 (73.6%)" }, "misses": "G: software houses and agencies that list generative AI or computer vision among many services, IT consultancies, a web host, and a marketing agency. N: two venture funds, an awards event, a news site, a tech blog, a podcast, a keynote speaker, and two education projects." }, "target": "The target was 90% of matches being AI companies. It was not met: the definition reaches 77.7% on fresh reads. Tags are written by or for each company, generalist firms list AI terms freely, and no filter on the Platform separates them; a stricter rule either keeps a third of AI companies with a bias toward recent names or was fitted to the reads it was measured on.", "false_negatives": "Of the 260 loose-term matches that the definition leaves out (read in the fit step), 81 (31.2%) are AI companies (39 Y, 42 V), mostly companies tagged only artificial intelligence, machine learning, or AI; 107 are N and 72 are G. The definition is a precise core, not a census: on these reads it keeps about 42% of AI companies.", "records": "Audit records are kept outside the repository and in data/raw/.", "false_positives": "Of the 48 non-AI companies in the fresh reads: 29 generalist firms (software houses, IT consultancies, agencies, a web host) and 19 not AI or not companies (two venture funds, an awards event, a news site, a blog, a podcast, a keynote speaker, two education projects). By industry: IT Services and IT Consulting 11, Business Consulting and Services 6, Information Technology & Services 5, Software Development 5, Technology, Information and Internet or Media 6, venture capital 2, marketing 2. They are spread out, so no single exclusion removes most of them." }, "industry_note": "The top industries inside the definition are counted in industries.json. industry is free text on the Platform, so a value is matched word by word; each candidate is counted without the candidates whose words contain its words (Software Development without IT System Custom Software Development).", "decision": "The definition was kept because it is the only candidate whose precision and catch are both flat across founding eras: on fresh reads 77.5%, 74.2%, and 81.3% of its matches are AI companies for 2016 to 2019, 2020 to 2022, and 2023 to 2025, and on the fit reads it keeps 17 of 40, 15 of 34, and 26 of 65 AI companies (about 42% each). A before and after share needs both to hold still. The probe's four terms become more precise and catch fewer AI companies in later years (precision 43%, 48%, 67%; catch 90%, 74%, 46%), so they understate the rise (1.60 times); the name path catches more in later years (5 of 40, 8 of 34, 18 of 65), so it overstates it (5.69 times). The two bracket the definition's 2.91 times. Its precision is 77.7% on fresh reads, below the 90% target.", "candidates": [ { "rule": "loose: any of the nine loose terms", "class_count": 85823, "precision": "139 of 325 (42.8%)", "catch": "100%", "by_era": "40/119, 34/86, 65/120" }, { "rule": "probe: artificial intelligence, generative AI, machine learning, large language models", "class_count": 38156, "precision": "91 of 181 (50.3%)", "catch": "65%", "by_era": "36/84, 25/52, 30/45" }, { "rule": "keywords AI", "count_2023": 24847, "precision": "118 of 256 (46.1%)", "catch": "85%", "by_era": "30/80, 27/67, 61/109" }, { "rule": "keywords artificial intelligence", "count_2023": 11866, "precision": "72 of 135 (53.3%)", "catch": "52%", "by_era": "27/59, 20/39, 25/37" }, { "rule": "keywords machine learning", "count_2023": 4676, "precision": "46 of 83 (55.4%)", "catch": "33%", "by_era": "25/46, 13/24, 8/13" }, { "rule": "artificial intelligence and machine learning", "precision": "31 of 43 (72.1%)", "catch": "22%", "by_era": "17/24, 9/12, 5/7" }, { "rule": "five technical terms, any", "precision": "32 of 42 (76.2%); 124 of 162 (76.5%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "23%", "by_era": "15/21, 7/8, 10/13" }, { "rule": "generative AI", "count_2023": 2716, "precision": "14 of 17 (82%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "deep learning", "count_2023": 635, "precision": "10 of 13 (77%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "computer vision", "count_2023": 709, "precision": "9 of 14 (64%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "natural language processing", "count_2023": 525, "precision": "7 of 7", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "LLM", "count_2023": 837, "precision": "1 of 5", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "name path: name AI, a loose term, types excluded", "class_count": 9813, "precision": "31 of 32 (96.9%); 61 of 71 (85.9%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "22%", "by_era": "fit 5/5, 8/8, 18/19; fresh 14/16, 14/19, 33/36; catch 5 of 40, 8 of 34, 18 of 65" }, { "rule": "definition (name path or five technical terms, types excluded)", "class_count": 17871, "precision": "58 of 65 (89.2%); 167 of 215 (77.7%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "42%", "by_era": "fresh 69/89, 46/62, 52/64" }, { "rule": "loose, industry Software Development or Technology, Information and Internet only", "precision": "58 of 91 (63.7%)", "catch": "42%" }, { "rule": "definition, IT service industries excluded", "precision": "50 of 57; 134 of 166 (80.7%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "36%" }, { "rule": "definition, IT service, consulting, marketing, and advertising industries excluded", "precision": "47 of 54; 125 of 148 (84.5%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "34%; loses a quarter of the definition's AI companies" }, { "rule": "name path, IT service industries excluded", "precision": "26 of 27; 53 of 59 (89.8%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "19%" }, { "rule": "keyword exclusions (blockchain, web development, digital marketing, SEO, consulting, and others) on the loose base", "precision": "at best 69%", "catch": "63%" } ], "candidates_note": "Counts are for companies founded 2023 to 2025 (class_count) or in 2023 (count_2023). Precision is the share of hand-read matches that are AI companies, from the fit reads unless marked fresh; catch is the share of the 139 AI companies among the fit reads that the rule keeps; by_era gives AI companies over reads for 2016 to 2019, 2020 to 2022, and 2023 to 2025. Rules on fewer than 20 reads are noise. keywords eq counts the same as match, so exact-tag rules cannot be built."}
{ "size": { "field": "size", "bands": [ "Myself Only", "1-10", "11-50", "51-200", "201-500", "501-1000", "1001-5000", "5001-10,000", "10,001+" ], "note": "The headcount band on the company page, one of nine closed values; a company without one is counted as none. Bands per founding year 2016 to 2026 for AI companies." }, "growth": { "field": "headcount_growth_yoy_pct", "min_headcount": 11, "bands": [ { "id": "below-minus-20", "lt": -20 }, { "id": "minus-20-to-0", "gte": -20, "lt": 0 }, { "id": "0-to-20", "gte": 0, "lt": 20 }, { "id": "20-to-50", "gte": 20, "lt": 50 }, { "id": "50-to-100", "gte": 50, "lt": 100 }, { "id": "100-plus", "gte": 100 } ], "note": "Year-on-year change in headcount, in percent, as the Platform reports it. Counted only for companies with a headcount of 11 or more: at 10 or fewer, one hire moves the figure by 10% or more (a company going from 5 to 30 people shows 500%), and for a company founded in the last year there is no year-ago figure to compare. Companies with no growth figure are counted as not stated.", "validation": "46 records were read in two whole slices (AI companies founded in 2023 with headcount 30 to 32, and founded in 2019 with headcount 40 to 41, each with a growth figure). Every value is a plausible percentage (from -23.8 to 500), consistent with a change between two whole headcounts a year apart: 500 means a company went from 5 to 30. The year-ago base is not always the headcount field today, since the two were observed at different times. Every record in both slices was refreshed between 2026-04-21 and 2026-05-03." }, "funding": { "fields": [ "last_funding.date", "last_funding.amount" ], "note": "last_funding is the most recent funding round only: its date and amount. A company whose latest round was small but earlier rounds were large shows the small one, and a company with no known round has neither field. Rounds before a company's latest are not on the record.", "quarters": [ "2023Q1", "2026Q3" ], "amount_bands": [ { "id": "under-1m", "lt": 1000000 }, { "id": "1m-5m", "gte": 1000000, "lt": 5000000 }, { "id": "5m-20m", "gte": 5000000, "lt": 20000000 }, { "id": "20m-50m", "gte": 20000000, "lt": 50000000 }, { "id": "50m-100m", "gte": 50000000, "lt": 100000000 }, { "id": "100m-1b", "gte": 100000000, "lt": 1000000000 }, { "id": "1b-plus", "gte": 1000000000 } ], "amount_country": "United States", "currency": "Amounts are not all in US dollars, and the record has no currency field. Reading every AI company founded since 2022 with headcount 50 or less and a latest round of 50,000,000 or more (70 records) found South Korean companies of 8 to 36 people with rounds of 3,000,000,000 to 60,000,000,000, and Japanese ones of 1 to 22 people with 50,000,000 to 460,000,000: amounts in won and yen, not dollars. Amount bands and the small-team list are therefore limited to companies headquartered in the United States, where amounts read as dollars. The date fields have no such problem and cover every country.", "quarters_cut": "Latest rounds stop after 2026Q1 (3 in 2026Q2, none in 2026Q3) because the company records were last refreshed in April and May 2026. A chart ends at 2026Q1, which may itself be incomplete." }, "lean": { "note": "Small teams with big rounds: AI companies founded in 2022 or later with headcount 50 or less and a latest round of 50,000,000 or more, headquartered in the United States (see funding.currency). Counts use the definition in definition.json and, for comparison, the loose terms. The list reads every company that matches the loose terms, so no AI company is missed by the stricter definition, and keeps a company only when it passes the checks below.", "founded_from": 2022, "headcount_max": 50, "amount_min": 50000000, "also_counted": { "headcount_max": [ 10, 50, 100 ], "amount_min": [ 50000000, 100000000 ] }, "checks": [ "The round is dated no earlier than the founding year; a round dated before the company was founded means the founding year or the round belongs to another company.", "The amount is below 1,000,000,000; a round of a billion dollars or more for a team of 50 or fewer was treated as a data error unless a public source was checked, and none was.", "The tags make AI the product or part of the core product (Y or V in definition.json); companies that name AI once among other tags are left out.", "The record is a company, not a domain listing or a page for sale." ], "excluded": { "HOMI AI": "a 1,200,000,000 round for a team of 7: amount taken as a data error", "Lightwheel": "a 1,000,000,000 round for a team of 35: amount taken as a data error", "PRINS AI TECHNOLOGY LTD": "a domain listing for sale, one employee", "Rebellion Defense": "the round (2021) predates the founding year on the record (2025)", "LootMogul": "a sports and gaming platform; AI is one tag among many", "Moonwalk Biosciences": "an epigenetics biotech; AI is one tag among many", "Empress Therapeutics": "a drug discovery biotech; no tag names AI as its method", "Real Messenger": "a real estate messaging app; AI is one tag among many" } }, "industries": { "candidates": [ "Software Development", "Technology, Information and Internet", "IT Services and IT Consulting", "Information Technology & Services", "Business Consulting and Services", "Technology, Information and Media", "IT System Custom Software Development", "Research Services", "Hospitals and Health Care", "Financial Services", "Marketing Services", "Advertising Services", "E-Learning Providers", "Data Infrastructure and Analytics", "Computer and Network Security", "Biotechnology Research", "Professional Training and Coaching", "Robotics Engineering", "Business Intelligence Platforms", "Human Resources Services", "Staffing and Recruiting", "Medical Equipment Manufacturing" ], "note": "industry is free text on the Platform (over three hundred values), matched word by word. Each candidate is counted without the candidates whose words include all of its words, so Software Development leaves out IT System Custom Software Development; a longer value outside the list that contains a candidate's words is still counted with it. Candidates are the industries most common in the audit reads; the rest is the cohort minus the listed rows, and companies with no industry are part of it." }, "controls": { "note": "The growth, funding coverage, US amount, and size measures repeated for every company of the same types (Nonprofit, Educational, and Government Agency excluded) with no AI filter, written to controls.json beside the AI figures and all minus AI. Cohort totals are counted one founding year at a time and split when banded." }}
Where their staff came from
Part 4, Figure 07
Where the visible staff of the class's largest companies worked before.
07
7.6% of visible staff at the class's largest AI companies once worked at big tech, against 5.6% at the largest founded 2016 to 2019
Visible profiles with a current job at these companies, by earlier employer (internships left out), as a share of all of them, on a 0 to 8% scale. A person can have several earlier employers; the last row is a current title, not an employer
Any of the big tech companies below 7.6% / 5.6%; Google, Google DeepMind included 2.4% / 1.5%; Amazon 2.3% / 1.8%; Microsoft 1.6% / 1.2%; Meta 1.4% / 0.9%; Apple 0.6% / 0.7%; NVIDIA 0.4% / 0.3%; Current title names founder 2.9% / 1.1%
- Any of the big tech companies below7.6%, older companies 5.6%
- Google, Google DeepMind included2.4%, older companies 1.5%
- Amazon2.3%, older companies 1.8%
- Microsoft1.6%, older companies 1.2%
- Meta1.4%, older companies 0.9%
- Apple0.6%, older companies 0.7%
- NVIDIA0.4%, older companies 0.3%
- Current title names founder2.9%, older companies 1.1%
What it shows
Without the data-labeling marketplaces, whose visible staff are mostly contractors, the gap holds: 8.1% against 5.6%. Founder titles are 2.9% of the class's profiles and 1.1% of the older companies': younger, smaller teams carry more founders.
Method and limits
Each group starts from the largest 150 companies by headcount, each read by hand: only companies whose product or core is AI, and data-labeling marketplaces, are kept, while outsourcing houses, consultancies, and pages that are not companies are dropped. Profiles are matched by company name, with a sample checked against the company id on the profile. Counts are profiles visible through the Metix AI Platform, never a headcount, and a profile left out of date still counts as current. Cells of 1 to 9 people show as "<10". The comparison is the largest AI companies founded in 2016 to 2019, the previous wave of new AI companies, now established.
Source: Metix AI Platform, companies and profiles, 2026-09-23.
Queriesdefinition.json · staff.json
{ "note": "Who counts as an AI company. A company counts when its type is not Nonprofit, Educational, or Government Agency, and either its name carries the word AI and its keywords match one of the loose AI terms, or its keywords match one of the five technical terms. The Platform matches a term word by word, in any order, and ignores case; keywords is a list of tags, and a term can be matched by words from different tags. Every count in this case uses this definition unless a file says otherwise.", "exclude_types": [ "Nonprofit", "Educational", "Government Agency" ], "name_word": "AI", "loose_terms": [ "AI", "artificial intelligence", "generative AI", "machine learning", "large language models", "LLM", "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing" ], "technical_terms": [ "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing", "large language models", "generative AI" ], "where": { "all": [ { "not": { "field": "type", "in": [ "Nonprofit", "Educational", "Government Agency" ] } }, { "any": [ { "all": [ { "field": "name", "match": "AI" }, { "any": [ { "field": "keywords", "match": "AI" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "artificial intelligence" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "generative AI" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "machine learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "large language models" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "LLM" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "deep learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "computer vision" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "natural language processing" } ] } ] }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "deep learning" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "computer vision" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "natural language processing" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "large language models" }, { "field": "keywords", "match": "generative AI" } ] } ] }, "comparisons": { "probe": { "terms": [ "artificial intelligence", "generative AI", "machine learning", "large language models" ], "note": "The definition of the feasibility probe: any of four keyword terms. Counted per founding year beside the main definition in wave.json." }, "loose": { "terms_from": "loose_terms", "note": "Any of the nine loose terms. The population the definition audit sampled from." }, "name_path": { "note": "Only the first branch of the definition: the name carries AI and the keywords match a loose term, types excluded as above." }, "technical_neutral": { "terms": [ "deep learning", "computer vision", "natural language processing" ], "note": "The technical branch alone with the three terms that were in use long before 2022, types excluded as above. No name and no post-2022 vocabulary enters it, so a naming fashion or a new word cannot drive its rise." }, "technical": { "terms_from": "technical_terms", "note": "The technical branch alone with all five terms, types excluded as above." } }, "tests": { "eq_vs_match": "keywords is a free-text field, so eq behaves like match. Among companies founded in 2023, every pair below counted the same with eq and with match, in any case: artificial intelligence 11,866; machine learning 4,676; generative ai 2,716; llm 837; large language models 329; ai agents 1,125; AI 24,847; deep learning 635; computer vision 709; natural language processing 525; AI agent 480. Tag capitalisation therefore does not matter and no exact-tag test is possible. There is no stemming: AI agents 1,125 against AI agent 480.", "cross_tag": "Because words may come from different tags, the loose terms pick up companies whose tags never say the phrase: a company tagged deep technology innovation and e-learning matched deep learning, and a repair service tagged washing machine repair and learning system matched machine learning. Both were found in the audit reads.", "website": "website match ai finds nothing, even for sites under the .ai domain: 0 in a slice where 7 of 47 companies have one. A web address is stored as one word, so a domain cannot be used. name match AI finds AI as a separate word only (Mistral AI, not KolateAI).", "sizes": "Among companies founded in 2023, the probe definition counts 15,213, the loose terms 29,821, and the loose terms without a headcount 3,153." }, "audit": { "method": "Records were read in whole slices, never from the top of a search, because Search ranks by match quality. A slice is every match of the definition being audited in one founding year with linkedin_followers in a narrow window chosen so the slice held 15 to 50 companies, one slice per founding year from 2016 to 2025. Each company was classified by hand from its name, industry, and tags (there is no description field): Y, AI is the product or the service; V, AI is named as part of the core product in another field (an AI radiology tool, an AI-powered insurance valuation app); G, a generalist software house, agency, or consultancy that lists AI among many services, or a business where AI is incidental; N, AI is peripheral or absent, or the record is not a company (a student club, an association, an event, a journal, a fund). An AI company is Y or V.", "fit": { "population": "loose terms", "read": 325, "labels": { "Y": 87, "V": 52, "G": 75, "N": 111 }, "precision": { "loose terms": "139 of 325 (42.8%)", "probe definition": "91 of 181 (50.3%)", "artificial intelligence alone": "72 of 135 (53.3%)", "AI alone": "118 of 256 (46.1%)", "name path": "31 of 32 (96.9%)", "definition": "58 of 65 (89.2%)" }, "capture": "Of the 139 AI companies among the loose-term matches read, the definition keeps 58 (41.7%): 17 of 40 founded 2016 to 2019, 15 of 34 founded 2020 to 2022, and 26 of 65 founded 2023 to 2025, so the share it keeps does not change much with founding year. The name path alone keeps 5 of 40, 8 of 34, and 18 of 65, which rises with founding year because newer companies put AI in their names; that is why the name is not used alone.", "note": "Rules that reach 90% on these reads either keep only the name path (a naming fashion) or were tuned to these 325 records. The definition was fixed after this step and then audited again on fresh reads (validation)." }, "validation": { "population": "the definition", "read": 215, "slices": "One per founding year 2016 to 2025, 16 to 28 companies each, none of them read in the fit step.", "labels": { "Y": 116, "V": 51, "G": 29, "N": 19 }, "precision": "167 of 215 (77.7%) are AI companies; 116 (54.0%) sell AI itself.", "by_era": { "2016-2019": "69 of 89 (77.5%)", "2020-2022": "46 of 62 (74.2%)", "2023-2025": "52 of 64 (81.3%)" }, "by_branch": { "name path": "61 of 71 (85.9%)", "technical terms without the name": "106 of 144 (73.6%)" }, "misses": "G: software houses and agencies that list generative AI or computer vision among many services, IT consultancies, a web host, and a marketing agency. N: two venture funds, an awards event, a news site, a tech blog, a podcast, a keynote speaker, and two education projects." }, "target": "The target was 90% of matches being AI companies. It was not met: the definition reaches 77.7% on fresh reads. Tags are written by or for each company, generalist firms list AI terms freely, and no filter on the Platform separates them; a stricter rule either keeps a third of AI companies with a bias toward recent names or was fitted to the reads it was measured on.", "false_negatives": "Of the 260 loose-term matches that the definition leaves out (read in the fit step), 81 (31.2%) are AI companies (39 Y, 42 V), mostly companies tagged only artificial intelligence, machine learning, or AI; 107 are N and 72 are G. The definition is a precise core, not a census: on these reads it keeps about 42% of AI companies.", "records": "Audit records are kept outside the repository and in data/raw/.", "false_positives": "Of the 48 non-AI companies in the fresh reads: 29 generalist firms (software houses, IT consultancies, agencies, a web host) and 19 not AI or not companies (two venture funds, an awards event, a news site, a blog, a podcast, a keynote speaker, two education projects). By industry: IT Services and IT Consulting 11, Business Consulting and Services 6, Information Technology & Services 5, Software Development 5, Technology, Information and Internet or Media 6, venture capital 2, marketing 2. They are spread out, so no single exclusion removes most of them." }, "industry_note": "The top industries inside the definition are counted in industries.json. industry is free text on the Platform, so a value is matched word by word; each candidate is counted without the candidates whose words contain its words (Software Development without IT System Custom Software Development).", "decision": "The definition was kept because it is the only candidate whose precision and catch are both flat across founding eras: on fresh reads 77.5%, 74.2%, and 81.3% of its matches are AI companies for 2016 to 2019, 2020 to 2022, and 2023 to 2025, and on the fit reads it keeps 17 of 40, 15 of 34, and 26 of 65 AI companies (about 42% each). A before and after share needs both to hold still. The probe's four terms become more precise and catch fewer AI companies in later years (precision 43%, 48%, 67%; catch 90%, 74%, 46%), so they understate the rise (1.60 times); the name path catches more in later years (5 of 40, 8 of 34, 18 of 65), so it overstates it (5.69 times). The two bracket the definition's 2.91 times. Its precision is 77.7% on fresh reads, below the 90% target.", "candidates": [ { "rule": "loose: any of the nine loose terms", "class_count": 85823, "precision": "139 of 325 (42.8%)", "catch": "100%", "by_era": "40/119, 34/86, 65/120" }, { "rule": "probe: artificial intelligence, generative AI, machine learning, large language models", "class_count": 38156, "precision": "91 of 181 (50.3%)", "catch": "65%", "by_era": "36/84, 25/52, 30/45" }, { "rule": "keywords AI", "count_2023": 24847, "precision": "118 of 256 (46.1%)", "catch": "85%", "by_era": "30/80, 27/67, 61/109" }, { "rule": "keywords artificial intelligence", "count_2023": 11866, "precision": "72 of 135 (53.3%)", "catch": "52%", "by_era": "27/59, 20/39, 25/37" }, { "rule": "keywords machine learning", "count_2023": 4676, "precision": "46 of 83 (55.4%)", "catch": "33%", "by_era": "25/46, 13/24, 8/13" }, { "rule": "artificial intelligence and machine learning", "precision": "31 of 43 (72.1%)", "catch": "22%", "by_era": "17/24, 9/12, 5/7" }, { "rule": "five technical terms, any", "precision": "32 of 42 (76.2%); 124 of 162 (76.5%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "23%", "by_era": "15/21, 7/8, 10/13" }, { "rule": "generative AI", "count_2023": 2716, "precision": "14 of 17 (82%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "deep learning", "count_2023": 635, "precision": "10 of 13 (77%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "computer vision", "count_2023": 709, "precision": "9 of 14 (64%)", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "natural language processing", "count_2023": 525, "precision": "7 of 7", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "LLM", "count_2023": 837, "precision": "1 of 5", "note": "n under 20" }, { "rule": "name path: name AI, a loose term, types excluded", "class_count": 9813, "precision": "31 of 32 (96.9%); 61 of 71 (85.9%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "22%", "by_era": "fit 5/5, 8/8, 18/19; fresh 14/16, 14/19, 33/36; catch 5 of 40, 8 of 34, 18 of 65" }, { "rule": "definition (name path or five technical terms, types excluded)", "class_count": 17871, "precision": "58 of 65 (89.2%); 167 of 215 (77.7%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "42%", "by_era": "fresh 69/89, 46/62, 52/64" }, { "rule": "loose, industry Software Development or Technology, Information and Internet only", "precision": "58 of 91 (63.7%)", "catch": "42%" }, { "rule": "definition, IT service industries excluded", "precision": "50 of 57; 134 of 166 (80.7%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "36%" }, { "rule": "definition, IT service, consulting, marketing, and advertising industries excluded", "precision": "47 of 54; 125 of 148 (84.5%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "34%; loses a quarter of the definition's AI companies" }, { "rule": "name path, IT service industries excluded", "precision": "26 of 27; 53 of 59 (89.8%) in the fresh reads", "catch": "19%" }, { "rule": "keyword exclusions (blockchain, web development, digital marketing, SEO, consulting, and others) on the loose base", "precision": "at best 69%", "catch": "63%" } ], "candidates_note": "Counts are for companies founded 2023 to 2025 (class_count) or in 2023 (count_2023). Precision is the share of hand-read matches that are AI companies, from the fit reads unless marked fresh; catch is the share of the 139 AI companies among the fit reads that the rule keeps; by_era gives AI companies over reads for 2016 to 2019, 2020 to 2022, and 2023 to 2025. Rules on fewer than 20 reads are noise. keywords eq counts the same as match, so exact-tag rules cannot be built."}
{ "note": "Where the staff of the largest new AI companies worked before. For each company, the people with a current job entry at it (experience.company.name eq the company name and experience.is_current eq true, in one has_experience entry). The Platform cannot filter people by company id, so the join is by name and checked against ids on records. Counts are profiles visible through the Metix AI Platform, never a company's headcount.", "cohorts": { "class": { "from": 2023, "to": 2025, "headcount_min": 60, "top": 150 }, "baseline": { "from": 2016, "to": 2019, "headcount_min": 200, "top": 150 } }, "selection": "The AI companies (definition.json) founded in the cohort's years with a headcount of at least headcount_min are read, sorted by headcount, and the largest 150 are kept. Nothing further down can rank: a company outside the read has a smaller headcount than every company in it.", "screen": { "max_ratio": 1.5, "note": "A name that returns more current profiles than 1.5 times the company's headcount is shared with other employers (Cube, Agency, Aeon, Mission, Pearl) and is dropped. The screen also drops some real companies whose names are common words (Decagon, Cohere, Runway, Cresta)." }, "not_companies": { "class": { "Microsoft AI": "a division of Microsoft, not a new company", "RBC Borealis": "a bank's research lab", "Ellison Institute of Technology Oxford": "a research institute", "Women Defining AI": "a community", "AI Salon": "an events community", "Retail AI Council": "an industry council", "AI Forge": "an incubator", "Generative AI Tutorials, Prompts, & Tools": "a content page", "AI & ChatGPT Use Cases": "a content page", "New Vision Institute of Technology": "a training institute" }, "baseline": { "Peraton": "a defense IT contractor, not an AI company; with 13,400 staff it would outweigh the rest", "Toyota Research Institute": "a carmaker's research lab", "Karate Combat": "a sports league", "Data Science Nigeria": "a nonprofit community", "Future Robot Technology/Edge Computing": "a hardware reseller" } }, "id_check": { "note": "Each cohort's kept names are read in one whole slice: every current profile at any kept company whose total_experience_months is in a narrow window (arbitrary with respect to employer), with experience.company.id. A profile passes when a current entry matching one of the names carries that company's id. A name is dropped when its sampled profiles are two or more and fewer than half pass. The pass rate is published in staff.json.", "class_window": [ 100, 103 ], "baseline_window": [ 100, 100 ], "exploration": "Class: 176 of 181 profiles passed (97.2%); Dify failed 0 of 4 (profiles at DIFY Agency and other Difys) and is dropped. Baseline: 231 of 244 passed (94.7%); most failures are the same company under another id (SymphonyAI units, Rezolve AI)." }, "past": "An earlier job is a job entry at the employer that is not current (experience.is_current eq false) and not an internship (experience.seniority is not Intern and experience.title does not match intern), in one has_experience entry.", "employers": [ { "id": "google", "names": [ "Google" ], "note": "Also matches Google DeepMind entries." }, { "id": "deepmind", "names": [ "DeepMind" ] }, { "id": "meta", "names": [ "Meta", "Facebook" ] }, { "id": "openai", "names": [ "OpenAI" ] }, { "id": "anthropic", "names": [ "Anthropic" ] }, { "id": "microsoft", "names": [ "Microsoft" ] }, { "id": "amazon", "names": [ "Amazon" ], "note": "Also matches Amazon Web Services." }, { "id": "apple", "names": [ "Apple" ] }, { "id": "nvidia", "names": [ "NVIDIA" ] }, { "id": "stripe", "names": [ "Stripe" ] }, { "id": "uber", "names": [ "Uber" ] }, { "id": "airbnb", "names": [ "Airbnb" ] }, { "id": "salesforce", "names": [ "Salesforce" ] }, { "id": "palantir", "names": [ "Palantir" ] }, { "id": "databricks", "names": [ "Databricks" ] }, { "id": "scale-ai", "names": [ "Scale AI" ], "not_for": [ "baseline" ], "note": "Scale AI is itself a baseline company, so its current staff's earlier Scale AI entries would count as coming from it; the baseline row is withheld." } ], "rollups": { "big-tech": [ "google", "meta", "microsoft", "amazon", "apple", "nvidia" ], "frontier-lab": [ "openai", "anthropic", "deepmind" ] }, "founder": { "field": "current_title", "match": "founder", "note": "Co-founder is matched too: the word founder in any order." }, "privacy": "Profiles: a count from 1 to 9 is published as <10, a share needs a base of 30, and fetch.py withholds a rollup when it minus the sum of its shown members, or a shown member minus nothing, would leave 1 to 9 people. Rows overlap (one person can have worked at several), so rows are not added.", "not_companies_note": "Names are compared whole with the name on the record. In the replays before the hand classification, two entries above were shorter than the record's name and stayed in; the hand verdicts now exclude both (N).", "verdicts": { "class": { "Mistral AI": "Y", "Soul AI": "L", "Flowmingo AI": "V", "UnifyApps": "G", "Base44": "Y", "Generative AI Tutorials, Prompts & Use Cases for Gemini, DeepSeek, Claude, OpenAI | ChatGPT Central": "N", "Hippocratic AI": "Y", "Higgsfield AI": "Y", "MagicSchool AI": "V", "AI CERTs®": "N", "Technovert": "G", "Nexthop AI": "V", "Ema Unlimited": "Y", "Jump - Advisor AI": "V", "Adaptive Security": "V", "ITSOLERA PVT LTD": "G", "Norm Ai": "Y", "INDUSTRIAL DESIGN & ANIMATIONS": "G", "WP SEO AI": "G", "Autonoma AI": "Y", "Airia - Enterprise AI Simplified": "Y", "Sakana AI": "Y", "Upscale AI": "V", "Moonshot AI": "Y", "Xcelore": "G", "Lyzr AI": "Y", "DeepSeek AI": "Y", "BeatpulseLabs": "L", "HappyRobot": "Y", "ProductSquads": "G", "Demand AI": "V", "Holisticon Poland": "G", "CyArt": "G", "Aivar Innovations": "Y", "Blueflame AI": "Y", "Nexaminds": "Y", "Moonvalley": "Y", "TensorWave": "Y", "RepRally": "G", "Chemin AI": "L", "Jeeva AI": "Y", "Emergence AI": "Y", "GC AI": "Y", "Rubick AI": "V", "Dailoqa": "G", "Liquid AI": "Y", "Salesforge 🔥": "V", "Harmattan AI": "V", "Hyperbots Inc.": "Y", "Retell AI": "Y", "Wordsmith AI": "Y", "GrowthX AI": "G", "InstaLILY AI": "Y", "Soft Robotics Inc.": "V", "Xtract.io": "V", "Maven AGI": "Y", "OneByZero": "Y", "WisdomAI": "Y", "Grexa AI": "G", "smallest.ai": "Y", "Jeen.ai": "Y", "Black Forest Labs": "Y", "VinDynamics": "V", "Atombit": "V", "MINDFULAI": "G", "Sahara AI": "Y", "Ycotek": "G", "NC AI": "Y", "Tavily": "Y", "Diverger": "Y", "Louisa AI": "V", "ProRata.ai": "Y", "Digital Nexus AI": "G", "Series Entertainment": "V", "ThoughtMinds": "Y", "Glam AI": "Y", "DataCrumbs": "N", "Darwin AI": "V", "Skild AI": "Y", "Peec AI": "V", "Saras AI Institute": "N", "Metafusion": "Y", "Skywork AI": "Y", "Techtics.AI": "Y", "Promtior": "Y", "throxy (yc x25)": "V", "NeoSpace AI": "Y", "Whilter.AI": "Y", "Listen Labs": "Y", "Sola Security": "V", "Persona AI Inc": "V", "Elite Global AI": "V", "Mihira AI": "Y", "JazzX AI": "Y", "Generative Bionics": "V", "Fractional AI": "Y", "David AI": "L", "Synthflow AI": "Y", "StackAI": "Y", "ShopOS": "Y", "Positron AI": "Y", "GreyLabs AI": "Y", "BrandLovrs": "G", "Code Metal": "Y", "Dropzone AI": "Y", "World Labs": "Y", "AIxBlock": "L", "BLUESENSE": "Y", "IntelliAM AI PLC": "V", "TWG AI": "Y", "Aurasell AI": "Y", "Clover Security": "V", "NeuroDiscovery AI": "V", "Clinizone Business Solutions": "G", "Harmonic Security": "V" }, "baseline": { "Scale AI": "L", "Verkada": "V", "SymphonyAI": "Y", "MathCo": "V", "Call Center Studio": "G", "Metropolis Technologies": "V", "Verbit.ai": "V", "Glean": "Y", "Objectways": "L", "Flock Safety": "V", "VAST Data": "G", "Tenstorrent": "Y", "Snorkel AI": "Y", "Indodana": "N", "Annova Solutions": "N", "Wayve": "Y", "Yellow.ai": "Y", "Techolas Technologies": "N", "Rubixe - AI Solutions Company": "G", "ConcertAI": "V", "Artlist": "N", "Synthesia": "Y", "NewVision Software": "G", "Hugging Face": "Y", "Photoroom": "V", "Particular Audience": "V", "Trenser Technology Solutions (P) Ltd.": "G", "Graphcore": "Y", "Armsoftech Private Limited": "G", "SightSpectrum": "G", "Abridge": "Y", "Starburst": "G", "DeepLearning.AI": "V", "Accelirate Inc.": "G", "Detect Technologies": "V", "TestMu AI": "V", "NeuraFlash": "G", "Wirestock": "V", "Meero": "G", "Intellectt Inc": "G", "Temporal Technologies": "G", "Wakeb_Data": "V", "Labelbox": "L", "Parloa": "Y", "WeRide.ai": "Y", "Replit": "V", "Pixis": "Y", "Future Robot Technology/Edge Computing, Machine Vision, Motion Control": "N", "Aera Technology": "V", "Ritech International AG": "G", "Nfinite": "V", "Rezolve Ai": "V", "Horizon3.ai": "V", "株式会社FLUX": "V", "Qure.ai": "Y", "Omdena": "L", "DATAECONOMY": "G", "SambaNova Systems": "Y", "Buildots": "V", "Snappr": "V", "Draup": "V", "Blackstraw.ai": "Y", "ParallelDots": "V", "Globsyn-3rdLife": "G", "Krisp": "V", "Proper AI": "V", "Smartcat": "V", "Vyro": "Y", "Observe.AI": "Y", "Clarity AI": "V", "Aleph Alpha": "Y", "Groq": "Y", "Anota AI": "V", "Lucidya | لوسيديا": "V", "Shorthills AI": "Y", "Spyne": "V", "IQGeo": "G", "Abaka AI": "L", "Cast AI": "V", "BOOM imagestudio": "N", "Cloud Destinations": "G", "RandomTrees": "V", "Oooh": "N", "Viz.ai": "Y", "Weights & Biases": "Y", "Cognigy": "Y", "Ditstek Innovations Pvt. Ltd. (DITS)": "G", "Kopius, Inc.": "G", "NucleusTeq": "G", "株式会社エクサウィザーズ/ExaWizards Inc.": "Y", "Rizzle": "V", "Opporture": "L", "Addo AI": "Y", "Aeva": "V", "Music AI": "Y", "Pomvom [ TASE: PMVM ]": "V", "Ganit Inc.": "G", "Core Scientific": "G", "Centelon Solutions": "G", "isahit": "L", "d-Matrix": "Y", "Auditoria.AI": "V", "Leena AI": "Y", "IELEKTRON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.": "G", "Inspirit AI": "V", "Workcog Inc": "G", "PathAI": "Y", "Infrrd": "Y", "5C Network": "V", "Syntiant Corp.": "Y", "Aisera": "Y", "Jarvis Consulting Group": "G", "Crimson Phoenix": "V", "MetaMap": "V", "Bear Robotics": "V", "AI Rudder": "Y", "ManyMangoes 🥭": "N", "Deepen AI": "V", "Netomi": "Y", "FiftyFive Technologies": "G", "Future WorkForce": "G", "AGNEXT": "V", "Rad AI": "Y", "TOPS Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd.": "G", "Silo AI": "Y" } }, "verdict_rule": "Every company kept by the screen and the id check was classified by hand from its name, industry, and tags with the scheme of the definition audit: Y, AI is the product or service; V, AI is part of the core product in another field; G, a generalist software house, IT consultancy, staffing or outsourcing firm, or agency; N, not a company or not AI (a content page, a certification body, a training institute, a lender, a sports or social app). A fifth label, L, marks data-labeling and data-collection marketplaces whose visible staff are mostly contractors or contributors (Scale AI, Soul AI, Objectways, Labelbox, Omdena, isahit, Abaka AI, Opporture, Chemin AI, David AI, AIxBlock, BeatpulseLabs). Only Y, V, and L are joined; staff.json gives every figure with L (set all) and without it (set without-labeling). A company that is not in this list, because a later replay picks it up, is left out and named in staff_companies.json."}
Run it
Three ways in. Each says what it costs before you start.
1 API Credit buys 25 search results or 5 full records; $1 buys 30 API Credits.
Run it in your agent
2,400 to 2,800 API Credits$80.00 to $93.33More than the 100 free API Credits
Your agent stops and asks before spending more than 3,000 API Credits.
Your agent follows the prompt step by step: it reads the rules, runs the counts, checks the definitions the prompt asks it to check, and writes the files and charts. Use an agent that can write files, such as Claude Code or Codex.
Set up onceKey, connection, and a free check. Skip this if your agent already reaches the Platform.
1Get a key
Create a key on the Metix AI Platform →New accounts get 100 API Credits once, valid for 30 days. Set the key in the shell you start your agent from, or add the line to ~/.zshrc or ~/.bashrc so every new terminal has it:
Shellexport METIX_KEY=metix_xxxxxxxx
2Connect your agent
Claude Code
Registers the Platform for every project. Start claude in any folder and the ten metix tools are there.
MCP setup guide →Shell: "${METIX_KEY:?run step 1 first}" && claude mcp add --scope user --transport http metix \ https://mira-api.metix.ai/mcp \ --header "Authorization: Bearer $METIX_KEY"Codex
Registers the same server. The key stays in your environment instead of the config file.
MCP setup guide →Shellcodex mcp add metix \ --url https://mira-api.metix.ai/mcp \ --bearer-token-env-var METIX_KEY
Skills
Four skills that teach any agent the Platform's endpoints and query rules, for agents without MCP. The installer starts with none ticked: press space on each, then enter.
Skills install guide →Shellnpx skills add MetixAI-Official/metix-skills
Other MCP
Point the client at this endpoint over streamable HTTP with both headers; without the Accept header the server answers 406. Older clients use /sse on the same host.
MCP setup guide →Endpoint and headershttps://mira-api.metix.ai/mcp Authorization: Bearer <your key> Accept: application/json, text/event-stream
3Check the setup
Ask this first. It reads your balance and the field list, runs no search, and costs nothing:
Prompt for your agentUse the Metix AI Platform to check my key status and read the contract; both are free. Then tell me my API Credit balance and which datasets I can query. Do not run any search.
4Paste the prompt
Start your agent in an empty folder, then paste. It writes its files there.
The question
Answer one question with the Metix AI Platform: ChatGPT launched on 2022-11-30; how many companies that describe themselves as AI companies were founded in the years after it, where are they, what do they say they build, how big have they grown, how are they funded, and where did their staff work before? Work only through the public Platform (REST at https://mira-api.metix.ai, the MCP server, or the metix-skills) with the key in METIX_KEY, and never print the key.
01Read before querying
Call GET /contract (free) and build every condition from querySpecByEntity.company and querySpecByEntity.profile; read GET /docs/api/companies and GET /docs/api/query-spec (free). keywords, name, industry, and headquarters.city are free text: match and eq both mean every word present, in any order, ignoring case, and in means any of several such values. size takes nine closed values. A total of 100,000 or more comes back as the string "100000+". A query holds at most 64 conditions. A count with size 1 costs 1 API Credit, a search 1 API Credit per 25 IDs, and a detail read 1 API Credit per 5 records. Check the balance with GET /auth/key/status (free) at the start and the end, and stop and ask before the run passes 3,000 API Credits.
02Population
An AI company is one whose type is not Nonprofit, Educational, or Government Agency, and either whose name has the word AI and whose keywords match any of AI, artificial intelligence, generative AI, machine learning, large language models, LLM, deep learning, computer vision, natural language processing; or whose keywords match any of deep learning, computer vision, natural language processing, large language models, generative AI. Cohorts by founded_year (a year only): 2019 to 2022 (before; the launch fell on 2022-11-30, so 2022 counts as before), 2023 to 2025 (the class), 2026 so far. Write the definition and the cohorts to files.
03Audit the definition before any measure
Search ranks by match quality, so never judge a definition from the top of a search. Read whole slices: every match in one founding year with linkedin_followers in a narrow window, 15 to 50 companies, one slice per year from 2016 to 2025 (about 200 companies; _source id, name, industry, keywords, type, founded_year). Classify each by hand as AI is the product, AI is part of the core product in another field, a generalist firm listing AI among many services, or not AI or not a company; the first two are AI companies. Report the share, by founding era. Then read the matches of the nine loose terms that the definition leaves out, in the same kind of slices, and report how many are AI companies. Expect about 78% and about a third: tags are written freely, generalist firms list AI terms, and a name alone keeps newer companies more than older ones. Say so rather than tuning the rule to the reads.
04Founding wave
For each founding year 2010 to 2026, count AI companies and all companies. All companies is banded in most years: split it into size bands and no size, split a banded band by headcount (0, 1, 2, 3 to 4, 5 to 10, 11 or more, none), and add the parts. Publish the AI share of all companies founded that year; the share survives the lag that thins every recent year. Beside it, count the same share for each branch and for wider and narrower definitions: the name branch alone; the technical branch alone; the technical branch with only deep learning, computer vision, and natural language processing, which no naming fashion or post-2022 word can move; the probe terms; the loose terms. State only what holds across them. Show the lag: count AI companies per founding year by updated_at month and by whether a headcount is stated.
05Where
For the class and for 2019 to 2022: headquarters.country for about 60 candidate countries, the top 15, the rest, and no country, adding up to the cohort. Metros as a country, a list of cities in one in condition, and a state that is either named or missing (San Francisco has no state on 165 of 891 class companies); Singapore is the whole country. Publish each share both of the cohort and of the companies that give a city (or a country), and repeat the Bay Area, the city of San Francisco, and London under the probe and loose terms. Count all companies headquartered in China per year to show how thin that coverage is.
06What they build
For each founding year 2016 to 2026, the share of AI companies whose keywords match each of 15 themes: generative AI; LLM; AI agents or agentic; computer vision; NLP; machine learning; robotics (not robotic process automation); data analytics; SaaS; health; fintech; cybersecurity; developer tools; voice and speech; AI infrastructure (GPU, inference, MLOps). Read one small slice per theme and drop any term that matches through words from different tags (financial technology, information security, AI infrastructure) or marks service firms (devops). Count the same themes inside the loose population too (any loose term, same type exclusion), so the name branch entering without tags cannot drive a theme's fall.
07Size, growth, funding
Size bands per founding year. headcount_growth_yoy_pct in six bands and not stated, for headcount 11 or more only, class against 2019 to 2022; read 30 records first to check the values are percentages. Share of each cohort with last_funding.date and with last_funding.amount (the latest round only). Latest rounds by quarter 2023Q1 to 2026Q3. Amount bands only for United States headquarters: amounts elsewhere are in local currency (a Korean team of eight shows 23,000,000,000). Then read every United States AI company founded 2022 or later with headcount 50 or less and a latest round of 50,000,000 or more, and drop rounds dated before the founding year, billion-dollar rounds for such teams, and companies where AI is one tag among many. Count the growth bands, funding coverage, US amount bands, and size bands for every company of the same types as well, with no AI filter, so an AI figure can be told from a young-company figure. End the quarter chart at 2026Q1: records were refreshed in April and May 2026.
08Staff
Read the AI companies of the class with headcount 60 or more and take the largest 150; the same for 2016 to 2019 with headcount 200 or more. Count current profiles per name (has_experience with experience.company.name eq the name and experience.is_current eq true); drop names that return more than 1.5 times the headcount, and divisions, labs, and communities that are not companies. Classify every remaining company by hand with the scheme of step 3 and keep only AI companies; mark data-labeling marketplaces, whose visible staff are mostly contractors, as their own group, and report every staff figure with and without them. Read one whole slice of the kept companies' staff (total_experience_months in a narrow window) with experience.company.id and drop names where most profiles carry another company's id. Then count people currently at any kept company (one in condition) with an earlier, non-internship entry at Google, DeepMind, Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, NVIDIA, Stripe, Uber, Airbnb, Salesforce, Palantir, Databricks, and Scale AI (not for the 2016 to 2019 baseline, which includes Scale AI itself), and at any big tech or any frontier lab; and those whose current_title matches founder.
09Outputs and charts
Aggregates with "unit" (companies, or profiles for the staff), the snapshot date, and the query files. Profiles: 1 to 9 as "<10", shares only on a base of 30, and no rollup published that differs from its shown members by 1 to 9. Charts: the AI share by founding year with the partial years marked; top countries and metros for both cohorts; the theme shares as small multiples across years; growth bands; rounds by quarter; the small-team list as a table; earlier employers against the baseline. Titles state findings in neutral words.
10Limits
A precise core, not a census: the definition keeps about four in ten AI companies and about one in five of its matches is not one. How large the rise after the launch looks depends on how companies describe themselves: by names and new vocabulary it roughly triples, by the older technical tags it is about a fifth, and counts cannot tell more AI companies from more companies saying so. founded_year is a year, and records were refreshed in April and May 2026, so 2025 is incomplete and 2026 covers a few months. last_funding is one round, amounts are in local currency outside the United States, and headcount is what the company page reports. Staff counts are visible profiles, joined by name, and never a headcount.
What you get
The aggregate files and the chart, a note on what the audits found and what they changed, and the API Credits the run spent, read from the balance before and after.
A call that returns 402 insufficient_quota means the key works and the balance is empty.
Reproduce the numbers
2,481 API Credits$82.70More than the 100 free API Credits
A short standard-library Python script sends the committed queries, reads the 762 records the method needs, and writes the aggregate files this page is built from. It needs Python and METIX_KEY set in the shell (step 1 of the agent path); your agent can run these lines for you as well.
curl -fsSL https://platform.metix.ai/casebook/source/class-of-2023-ai-companies-2026.tar.gz | tar xz
cd class-of-2023-ai-companies-2026
: "${METIX_KEY:?set METIX_KEY first}" && python3 cases/class-of-2023-ai-companies-2026/fetch.pyWhat you get
data/*.json and data/receipt.json. Run git diff cases/class-of-2023-ai-companies-2026/data to see what moved: the numbers should match, apart from what changed in the data since the snapshot.
Adapt it
Costs what your version reads. Write your own ceiling into step 1 of the prompt.
The prompt is the case. Change the parts in this table and your agent answers your question instead, with the same checks and the same way of reporting cost.
| To change | Edit | For example |
|---|---|---|
| What counts as an AI company | Step 2, then audit it again in step 3 | Add machine learning to the technical terms, and expect lower precision |
| The launch you date from | The cohorts in step 2 | Companies founded after GPT-4 (2023-03-14) would need a month, which founded_year does not have |
| The country | headquarters.country in steps 4 to 8 | Only United Kingdom companies, with London and Cambridge as metros |
| The employers | The list in step 8 | Add xAI, Mistral AI, or ByteDance |
| The API Credit ceiling | Steps 1 and 8 | Skip the staff join (step 8) to save about 530 API Credits |
What to ask before running it
When someone brings a looser version of this question, settle these first. Each one changes the query or the cost:
- What makes a company an AI company: its name, its tags, or both, and how much noise is acceptable?
- Which founding years count as after the launch, given that the Platform stores a year only?
- Which countries, and should amounts be compared across currencies at all?
- Should the staff join run, and against which baseline cohort?
Answer one question with the Metix AI Platform: ChatGPT launched on 2022-11-30; how many companies that describe themselves as AI companies were founded in the years after it, where are they, what do they say they build, how big have they grown, how are they funded, and where did their staff work before? Work only through the public Platform (REST at https://mira-api.metix.ai, the MCP server, or the metix-skills) with the key in METIX_KEY, and never print the key. 1. Read before querying. Call GET /contract (free) and build every condition from querySpecByEntity.company and querySpecByEntity.profile; read GET /docs/api/companies and GET /docs/api/query-spec (free). keywords, name, industry, and headquarters.city are free text: match and eq both mean every word present, in any order, ignoring case, and in means any of several such values. size takes nine closed values. A total of 100,000 or more comes back as the string "100000+". A query holds at most 64 conditions. A count with size 1 costs 1 API Credit, a search 1 API Credit per 25 IDs, and a detail read 1 API Credit per 5 records. Check the balance with GET /auth/key/status (free) at the start and the end, and stop and ask before the run passes 3,000 API Credits. 2. Population. An AI company is one whose type is not Nonprofit, Educational, or Government Agency, and either whose name has the word AI and whose keywords match any of AI, artificial intelligence, generative AI, machine learning, large language models, LLM, deep learning, computer vision, natural language processing; or whose keywords match any of deep learning, computer vision, natural language processing, large language models, generative AI. Cohorts by founded_year (a year only): 2019 to 2022 (before; the launch fell on 2022-11-30, so 2022 counts as before), 2023 to 2025 (the class), 2026 so far. Write the definition and the cohorts to files. 3. Audit the definition before any measure. Search ranks by match quality, so never judge a definition from the top of a search. Read whole slices: every match in one founding year with linkedin_followers in a narrow window, 15 to 50 companies, one slice per year from 2016 to 2025 (about 200 companies; _source id, name, industry, keywords, type, founded_year). Classify each by hand as AI is the product, AI is part of the core product in another field, a generalist firm listing AI among many services, or not AI or not a company; the first two are AI companies. Report the share, by founding era. Then read the matches of the nine loose terms that the definition leaves out, in the same kind of slices, and report how many are AI companies. Expect about 78% and about a third: tags are written freely, generalist firms list AI terms, and a name alone keeps newer companies more than older ones. Say so rather than tuning the rule to the reads. 4. Founding wave. For each founding year 2010 to 2026, count AI companies and all companies. All companies is banded in most years: split it into size bands and no size, split a banded band by headcount (0, 1, 2, 3 to 4, 5 to 10, 11 or more, none), and add the parts. Publish the AI share of all companies founded that year; the share survives the lag that thins every recent year. Beside it, count the same share for each branch and for wider and narrower definitions: the name branch alone; the technical branch alone; the technical branch with only deep learning, computer vision, and natural language processing, which no naming fashion or post-2022 word can move; the probe terms; the loose terms. State only what holds across them. Show the lag: count AI companies per founding year by updated_at month and by whether a headcount is stated. 5. Where. For the class and for 2019 to 2022: headquarters.country for about 60 candidate countries, the top 15, the rest, and no country, adding up to the cohort. Metros as a country, a list of cities in one in condition, and a state that is either named or missing (San Francisco has no state on 165 of 891 class companies); Singapore is the whole country. Publish each share both of the cohort and of the companies that give a city (or a country), and repeat the Bay Area, the city of San Francisco, and London under the probe and loose terms. Count all companies headquartered in China per year to show how thin that coverage is. 6. What they build. For each founding year 2016 to 2026, the share of AI companies whose keywords match each of 15 themes: generative AI; LLM; AI agents or agentic; computer vision; NLP; machine learning; robotics (not robotic process automation); data analytics; SaaS; health; fintech; cybersecurity; developer tools; voice and speech; AI infrastructure (GPU, inference, MLOps). Read one small slice per theme and drop any term that matches through words from different tags (financial technology, information security, AI infrastructure) or marks service firms (devops). Count the same themes inside the loose population too (any loose term, same type exclusion), so the name branch entering without tags cannot drive a theme's fall. 7. Size, growth, funding. Size bands per founding year. headcount_growth_yoy_pct in six bands and not stated, for headcount 11 or more only, class against 2019 to 2022; read 30 records first to check the values are percentages. Share of each cohort with last_funding.date and with last_funding.amount (the latest round only). Latest rounds by quarter 2023Q1 to 2026Q3. Amount bands only for United States headquarters: amounts elsewhere are in local currency (a Korean team of eight shows 23,000,000,000). Then read every United States AI company founded 2022 or later with headcount 50 or less and a latest round of 50,000,000 or more, and drop rounds dated before the founding year, billion-dollar rounds for such teams, and companies where AI is one tag among many. Count the growth bands, funding coverage, US amount bands, and size bands for every company of the same types as well, with no AI filter, so an AI figure can be told from a young-company figure. End the quarter chart at 2026Q1: records were refreshed in April and May 2026. 8. Staff. Read the AI companies of the class with headcount 60 or more and take the largest 150; the same for 2016 to 2019 with headcount 200 or more. Count current profiles per name (has_experience with experience.company.name eq the name and experience.is_current eq true); drop names that return more than 1.5 times the headcount, and divisions, labs, and communities that are not companies. Classify every remaining company by hand with the scheme of step 3 and keep only AI companies; mark data-labeling marketplaces, whose visible staff are mostly contractors, as their own group, and report every staff figure with and without them. Read one whole slice of the kept companies' staff (total_experience_months in a narrow window) with experience.company.id and drop names where most profiles carry another company's id. Then count people currently at any kept company (one in condition) with an earlier, non-internship entry at Google, DeepMind, Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, NVIDIA, Stripe, Uber, Airbnb, Salesforce, Palantir, Databricks, and Scale AI (not for the 2016 to 2019 baseline, which includes Scale AI itself), and at any big tech or any frontier lab; and those whose current_title matches founder. 9. Outputs and charts. Aggregates with "unit" (companies, or profiles for the staff), the snapshot date, and the query files. Profiles: 1 to 9 as "<10", shares only on a base of 30, and no rollup published that differs from its shown members by 1 to 9. Charts: the AI share by founding year with the partial years marked; top countries and metros for both cohorts; the theme shares as small multiples across years; growth bands; rounds by quarter; the small-team list as a table; earlier employers against the baseline. Titles state findings in neutral words. 10. Limits. A precise core, not a census: the definition keeps about four in ten AI companies and about one in five of its matches is not one. How large the rise after the launch looks depends on how companies describe themselves: by names and new vocabulary it roughly triples, by the older technical tags it is about a fifth, and counts cannot tell more AI companies from more companies saying so. founded_year is a year, and records were refreshed in April and May 2026, so 2025 is incomplete and 2026 covers a few months. last_funding is one round, amounts are in local currency outside the United States, and headcount is what the company page reports. Staff counts are visible profiles, joined by name, and never a headcount.
Method and limits
How the population was defined, counted, and checked, and what the numbers cannot show.
Companies and the definition
Company records on the Metix AI Platform on September 23, 2026, leaving out nonprofits, educational institutions, and government agencies. The definition of an AI company, every comparison definition, and the audit are in queries/definition.json. Tags are free text, and the Platform matches a term word by word in any order, so a phrase can be put together from words in different tags; the audit found deep technology and e-learning read as deep learning.
Audit
Every read was a whole slice: all the companies of one founding year whose LinkedIn following falls in a narrow window, never the top of a search, which ranks by how well a record matches. Designing the definition read 325 companies, and a separate validation read 215, of which 167 (77.7%) make AI their product or its core. It catches about four in ten AI companies in 2016 to 2019, 2020 to 2022, and 2023 to 2025 alike, so founding years compare; a definition by name alone catches more of each newer year's AI companies and overstates the rise, which is why figure 01 sets the definitions side by side.
The denominator and the lag
Shares are of every company of the same types (nonprofits, educational institutions, and government agencies left out here too), added up each year from counts split so no total is cut off at the Platform's band. Recent years are still filling in, so years compare by share only. A founding year has no month; ChatGPT launched on November 30, 2022 (OpenAI's announcement), so 2022 counts as before.
Limits
Tags and founding years are what companies write. Tags describe a company as it is today, so an older company that took up AI later counts in its founding year; that raises the earlier years' shares, so if anything the rise is understated. Headcount and its change are what company pages report. Funding is the latest round only, with no currency. The Platform holds few Chinese companies. Staff sources cover the largest companies only, matched by name, and count visible profiles, never staff.
The last reproduction
What reproducing this case cost the last time the script ran, read from the Platform's own balance before and after.
- Ran on
- 2026-09-23
- Calls
- 2,546
- Search results
- 3,056
- Records read
- 762
- API Credits
- 2,481
Search results are IDs returned by searches, one per count query and one per match on a full search. Records are postings or profiles read in full: 762 here.
Making this case cost about 10,481 API Credits more: the agent's audits, trial queries, and earlier runs that the published replay replaced. You do not pay that again.