Infrastructure and compute: Enterprises are buying AI compute for speed while flying blind on what it costs

Across 170 enterprises, AI infrastructure has moved decisively into production - two-thirds now run AI workloads live and three in 10 run them at scale - while the ability to account for what that infrastructure costs has not kept pace. Enterprises have quietly demoted cost in the buying decision: performance and GPU availability now outrank total cost of ownership, and reliability outranks price as the measure of success. That reordering is rational for teams under production pressure, but it lands on an uncomfortable fact - fewer than half can rigorously track what their AI compute costs, most GPUs still run at half capacity or less, and the next dollar is aimed at specialized clouds that fewer than one in twenty of them actually use. This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise AI infrastructure and compute: where organizations are in their deployment journey, what they run AI on today, how they buy and measure it, where the next investment is aimed, and - most revealingly - how well they can see the economics of the compute underneath it all. This is an operational cohort. Two-thirds of enterprises (66%) have AI workloads running in production, and 29% describe AI in production at scale, with only 4% not yet running AI workloads at all. That maturity shows in the stack: the average enterprise runs three infrastructure platforms, with OpenAI (49%), Google Gemini (48%), Microsoft Azure (47%), and Google Cloud (42%) all present in roughly half of them. Asked to name one primary platform, Azure leads at 26%. The most consequential shift is in how enterprises decide. Integration with the existing cloud and data stack remains the top selection factor at 40%, but performance - latency and throughput - has climbed to second at 35%, and access to GPU availability to third at 24%, both ahead of total cost of ownership at 22%. The same ordering governs measurement: uptime and reliability is the primary success metric for 51% of enterprises and developer productivity for 39%, ahead of cost per million tokens at 31%. Enterprises under production pressure are buying and measuring for speed and availability, and have moved cost down the list. That would be unremarkable if the economics were under control, but they're not. Among the 155 enterprises that operate their own GPUs, 69% report utilization of 50% or less and only 23% clear the halfway mark; 12% do not measure utilization at all. Fewer than half (47%) rigorously track what their AI compute costs and returns, and even among enterprises running AI in production at scale that figure only reaches 56%. Value for money is the weakest of three satisfaction scores at 3.87, against 4.14 for overall satisfaction - the softness landing precisely on the dimension hardest to judge without measurement. The next round of spending points away from the current stack. AI-specialized clouds are the top planned evaluation area at 44% and carry the strongest net momentum of any infrastructure approach (+36), yet CoreWeave and Lambda each registers at 3.5% of current usage and the rest of the neocloud field sits below 3%. Non-Nvidia accelerators draw 39%. And 62% of enterprises intend to switch or add a provider within 12 months - though the consideration set is dominated by the same incumbents they already run. Methodology VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this one focused on enterprise AI infrastructure, compute, and inference economics. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=170; the survey’s smallest size band, 1-100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single July 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends; all figures are drawn from the July fielding only. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%. By organization size this wave reaches further up-market than the mid-market skew this series usually carries: 251-1,000 employees (28%) and 1,001-5,000 (25%) lead, with 10,001+ (19%), 101-250 (15%), and 5,001-10,000 (12%) filling out the rest - meaning 57% of respondents sit above 1,000 employees. By role it spans managers (48%), individual contributors (27%), the C-suite (12%), and VPs and directors (9%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 39% final decision-makers and another 43% recommenders or influencers for AI solutions. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 35%, followed by Manufacturing (14%), Financial Services (12%), and Healthcare/Life Sciences (9%). At 170 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally with reasonable confidence, but it should still be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It is best read as the view from organizations actively building and operating AI infrastructure rather than from the largest hyperscale operators. Finding 1: Two-thirds are past the pilot Three in 10 now run AI in production at scale We asked where organizations sit in their AI deployment journey. This cohort has largely moved beyond experimentation. Finding 1 - Two-Thirds Are Past the Pilot Two-thirds of enterprises (66%) have AI workloads running in production, and 29% describe AI in production at scale. Only 30% remain in proofs of concept and just 4% have not started. This is a materially more operational sample than this series has typically drawn, consistent with its up-market composition - 57% of respondents sit above 1,000 employees. That maturity is the frame for everything that follows. The infrastructure decisions in this report are being made largely by organizations with production workloads and real bills, not by teams still sizing a pilot. It explains the reordering of buying criteria in Finding 5, where performance and availability displace cost - the priorities of teams running live systems. It also raises the stakes on Findings 6 and 7: an enterprise that cannot measure utilization or cost during experimentation has a planning problem, while one that cannot measure them in production at scale has an operating one. Finding 2: The stack is hyperscaler-and-API, three platforms deep The specialized GPU clouds still barely register We asked which providers and platforms enterprises currently use to run their AI, and which one they treat as primary. The answer remains the incumbents - several of them at once. Finding 2 - The Stack Is Hyperscaler-and-API, Three Platforms Deep The current stack is hyperscaler-and-API, and it is plural: enterprises name three platforms on average. The general-purpose clouds and the major model APIs account for essentially all current deployment, with four platforms - OpenAI, Gemini, Azure, and Google Cloud - each presents in more than four of every 10 enterprises. Asked to pick one primary platform, Microsoft Azure leads at 26%, with Google Cloud second at 19%; the model providers together take 35% of primary status when OpenAI (14%), Gemini (14%), and Anthropic (8%) are combined. The specialized “neocloud” GPU providers that dominate AI-infrastructure headlines remain marginal in practice. CoreWeave and Lambda each appear in 3.5% of stacks, Baseten in 3%, and Crusoe, Nebius, Fireworks, Together, and Anyscale each at or below 2%. Combined, they are named as the primary platform by 1% of enterprises. Meanwhile 13% run a custom open-source self-managed stack and 9% operate their own GPU clusters - both larger footprints than the entire specialized-cloud category. That contrast is what makes the evaluation intentions in Finding 3 worth reading closely. A note on reading these shares: As described in the methodology section, this sample is self-selected and this question counted every provider a respondent uses - an average of 3.0 selections each - so the figures measure presence in the stack rather than spending or primary status. The separate primary-platform question is the better guide to where the center of gravity sits. A sample built this way will show a different provider mix than a spend-weighted census of the broader market; read these shares as a portrait of what this AI-active cohort runs today, and treat gaps against industry-wide market share estimates as a property of the sample rather than a contradiction of either. Finding 3: The next dollar goes to infrastructure they don't yet run AI-specialized clouds top the evaluations list and carry the strongest momentum We asked where enterprises plan to evaluate AI infrastructure over the next 12 months, and whether they expect to do more or less with each category of infrastructure. Both answers point away from the stack they run today. Finding 3 - The Next Dollar Goes to Infrastructure They Don’t Yet Run Here is the report’s sharpest tension, and it is the same one this series has now recorded across successive waves. The single most-cited planned evaluation area - AI-specialized clouds, at 44% - is the category that 3.5% of these enterprises actually use (Finding 2). Nearly four in 10 (39%) intend to evaluate non-Nvidia accelerators, a quarter next-generation Nvidia silicon, and even decentralized compute networks draw 18%. The direction-of-travel question corroborates it rather than merely repeating it. Asked whether they expect to do more, less, or about the same with each approach, enterprises put specialized AI clouds at the highest net momentum (+36, with 42% doing more against 6% doing less), ahead of inference APIs (+34) and hyperscalers (+30). On-prem and co-located infrastructure is the laggard at +5, the only category where a substantial share - 22% - report pulling back. Every off-premises approach is net-expanding; the specialized clouds are expanding fastest from the smallest base. Read against current usage, this is not incremental adjustment. It is the leading edge of a re-platforming that enterprises have been