The AI Value Gap The distance between enterprise AI value claimed and created.

The AI Value Realisation Index

A demand-side lens on the AI bubble debate: how much of the AI value enterprises expect can be verified as real, measured results.

Aggregate of 536 companies · weighted by revenue × Talk Score

What this measures

The AI Value Realisation Index is a single score from 0 to 100. It measures how much of the AI value that large companies claim can be verified in what they disclose. It is an aggregate across the AI deployers in the S&P 500 and FTSE 100, meaning companies that use AI in their own business. It excludes the AI value chain, which is the chipmakers and the sellers of AI models, platforms and software, along with hybrids like Apple and Amazon. For those companies selling AI is the business, so whether they create value by using AI is a different question. Each company is scored on its own, and the index combines those scores. The score falls into four bands: Talking (0 to 20), Emerging (20 to 40), Proven (40 to 60), and Realised (60 to 100).

The terms

Ladder Level (0 to 5). How strong one piece of disclosed proof is. Level 0, no disclosed AI proof (the company may still mention AI). Level 1, a stated AI plan or goal - an ambition, target or planned investment, with no result yet; merely mentioning AI is not enough. Level 2, a live deployment with usage, adoption or spend to show for it, but no result. Level 3, the first real, quantified result. Level 4, a result tracked over time - a defined metric, such as cost or margin, that can be followed. Level 5, a broken-out, tracked result - AI value reported as its own KPI or P&L line. It is separated from the rest of the business and reported consistently, quarter after quarter, so an outsider can track the same figure over time. Aspirational claims and future targets sit at Level 1, and pilots are capped at Level 2, so neither counts as proof. Proof is drawn from earnings calls, 8-K releases, primary press and SEC filings, and the strongest evidence usually sits in calls and press rather than 10-Ks. Coverage is the S&P 500, updated quarterly, and the FTSE 100, updated semi-annually, each labelled by its reporting period.

Proven Value (0 to 100). A company's score. We take its best Ladder Level in each of three areas: cost, revenue and customer. We add the three Levels and scale the total to 100. Only Level 3 and above counts. A company has to prove value in more than one area to score highly. This is the only place the three areas are used.

Talk Score (0 to 1). How densely a company raises AI, across its SEC filings (10-K and 10-Q) and earnings calls. We count AI mentions relative to how much the company publishes, and how often AI comes up on its calls. We exclude risk-factor boilerplate, and theme and tag what remains. Those counts are put through a saturating curve that lands every company between 0 and 1. No AI talk scores 0. Heavy AI talk approaches 1, with diminishing returns near the top. The curve is fixed, so scores stay comparable across quarters even as AI language spreads. Talk Score is used only as a weight, in step 2 below.

Substantiation. The ratio of a company's evidenced claims against all AI claims. It is a companion figure. It is not part of the index and it is not a multiplier. It sets the size of each bubble on the Talk versus Proof chart and appears on the rankings tables.

How the index is built

Step 1. Score each company, using the Proven Value rule above.

Worked example, Block. Block discloses a quantified result in all three areas, each at Level 3. Each area scores 3 out of a possible 5, so 3 + 3 + 3 = 9, out of a maximum of 15. Scaled to 100, that is 9 ÷ 15 × 100 = 60. Block scores 60, the highest today. A company that proves only one area at Level 3 scores 20.

Step 2. Combine company-level Proven Value scores into one aggregate number. Each company's Proven Value is weighted by its revenue multiplied by its Talk Score. A large company that raises AI constantly counts for more than a small, quiet one. We add up the weighted scores and divide by the total weight. This quarter the result is 13.5, in the Talking band.

Block example. Block's revenue is about $24 billion and its Talk Score is 0.64. Its weight, revenue times Talk Score, comes to about 0.35% of the total across all companies. So Block's Proven Value of 60 contributes 60 × 0.35%, or about 0.2, to the index.

Why you can trust it

Every company, filing, earnings call and press claim we read is in the underlying data. If an announcement seems to prove more, look the company up and see how its disclosure scored. If something is missing, tell us and we will weigh it next quarter.

Go deeper: Rankings · Company analysis · AI Claim Finder · About

Index by edition

QuarterIndexStatus

Method log

Every published move of the index and every method change that made it more accurate, on the record.

DateTypeChange

Subscribe for the latest

Weekly analysis and new index reports the moment they publish.

The Proof Gap: AI talk vs. disclosed proof

Share of companies that disclose a live deployment (Level 2), a quantified result (Level 3), and a tracked result (Level 4), by quarter

Names a deployment (filings) Quantified result · Level 3 Trackable result · Level 4

Disclosure from company filings, 10-K and 10-Q. Quantified impact and proof levels from earnings calls, 8-K releases and web research.

Talk vs. Proof

AI disclosure volume against disclosed, verified proof. Bubble size shows how little of a company's AI talk is substantiated: bigger means more talk and less proof. Select a sector:

Sources: financial filings, earnings calls, press releases and web search.

The Proof Funnel

How far companies can back their AI talk - the strongest proof each has disclosed, cumulative. This measures evidence, not adoption: a company using AI but not disclosing a usage figure or result sits lower.

Slide or play to watch the funnel evolve. Verified at the latest quarter; auto-extracted floor for history. Sources: filings, earnings calls, press and web search.

What kind of proof?

Every disclosed proof point, grouped by the value domain it proves: cost, revenue or customer. Each bar shows the specific levers within that domain.

AvAI - Augmentation vs Automation Index

NEW

A companion index. Is enterprise AI running the task on its own, or helping a person do it better or faster? We tag every disclosed deployment as one or the other.

Augmentation 55% Automation 45% share of tagged deployments
55%
Augmentation leads
Most disclosed enterprise AI helps people do the work better or faster. Augmentation leads in the front office: service, sales, research. Automation concentrates in the back office: fraud, compliance, infrastructure.
Proven results (Level 3 and above) 52 Everything else 61 augmentation's share of deployments, %
+9
Measurement gap
Augmentation's share of deployments that reach a quantified result (Level 3) runs at 52%, compared with 61% for the rest. Proven value rewards what can be measured, and augmentation is harder to put a number on, so this category may not reflect the actual proportion of augmented and automated tasks.

How it's tagged. We split each disclosed AI deployment two ways: automation when the AI runs a core task end to end, augmentation when it helps a person do it better or faster. The tag is new, and companies rarely disclose enough for a definitive call, so it currently covers 1,410 deployments across two years of earnings calls, 8-Ks and filings.

Proven Value - Rankings

Proven Value (0–100) is the proof Level a company reaches in each of three areas: cost, revenue and customer, summed and scaled to 100. Only realised outcomes count, Level 3 and above. A score of 0 means no realised outcome disclosed. Substantiation is a company's disclosed proof set against how much it claims. A low figure means talk runs ahead of proof. Ranked by Proven Value. Click a company to open its analysis.

Select a company to see its AI Talk and AI Proof.

Subscribe for the latest

Weekly analysis and new index reports the moment they publish.

Explore what companies claim AI delivers

Build a question from the lenses below. Every figure is a deduplicated, sourced claim drawn from filings, earnings calls and 8-K releases. Pick a unit to see the spread of the numbers.

Is AI a bubble? The data says not yet.

Each quarter Marcus Weldon weighs the latest AI Value Gap results against the scale of AI spending, using Jev, TypeSafe's probabilistic decision model.

Bubble-burst probability

≥30% AI-equity correction and ≥20% capex cut, by end-2027

11%
▼ 1.6 pts since last reading
0% · no bubble50%100% · burst

The other readings

Jev sees real signs of over-investment in AI and gives a 30% fall in AI stocks by end-2027 roughly even odds.

54%
▼ 1.5 pts
≥30% AI-equity correction by end-2027
23%
▼ 1.8 pts
≥20% cut in AI infrastructure capex by end-2027
27%
▼ 1.8 pts
Evidence of inadequate returns visible by end-2027
36%
▼ 4.5 pts
AI cycle fails to earn adequate returns over 5 years

Readings by question and horizon

Probability, %

Previous reading (Q1 2026)Latest reading (Q2 2026)individual runs
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%Market correction ≥30%202635.032.6%202755.854.3%Capex retrenchment ≥20%20269.89.1%202724.322.5%Bubble burst20264.33.8%202712.811.2%Inadequacy signal202623.021.9%202728.426.6%Economic failure5 yrs40.936.4%

Each latest reading is the mean of 10 separate Jev runs, with every question asked on its own; ticks show the individual runs.

Reading history

QuarterValue Gap IndexCorrection ’27Capex cut ’27Bubble burst ’27Failure, 5 yrs
Q3 2026Next reading mid-November, after the Index publishes
Q2 202615.754.3%22.5%11.2%36.4%
Q1 202613.555.8%24.3%12.8%40.9%

What each reading measures

ReadingThe question Jev answers
Market correctionP(M)
Do AI-exposed stocks fall 30% or more, peak to trough? Measured on a broad basket of AI-exposed equities.
Investment retrenchmentP(I)
Is aggregate spending on AI infrastructure genuinely cut by 20% or more?
Bubble burstP(I) × P(M | I)
Do both happen: a 30% fall in AI stocks and a 20% cut in AI capex?
Inadequacy signal
By the date, does the evidence show the investment cycle is more likely than not to earn inadequate returns?
Economic failure
Over the next five years, does today's AI investment fail to earn adequate risk-adjusted returns?

Jev vs. ChatGPT

Ask ChatGPT whether the AI bubble bursts by end-2026 and it says 55–70%, a figure drawn from past technology bubbles and the stories being written about this one. Jev puts it at 4%: it only works from the evidence it is handed, and its numbers moved when that evidence moved - every reading fell once Q2 disclosure improved. Little is public about how Jev was trained, so each number is best read as a direction and a rough order of magnitude.

“When data dominates, classify; when text triumphs, chat.”Marcus Weldon

Read Marcus's full analysis on LinkedIn →

The Bubble Gauge reports model outputs produced by Marcus Weldon using Jev, with the AI Value Gap as an input. They are not part of the AI Value Gap scoring method, and they refer to the aggregate AI investment cycle, not any named company. The AI Value Gap measures what companies have disclosed about AI, not their actual AI use or value. Nothing here is investment advice.

Insights

Essays and analysis behind the index - published on Substack.

The AI Value Gap

The distance between enterprise AI value claimed and created.

Why it exists

Every large company now says it is powered by AI, but far fewer can show a hard number that proves it pays.

The whole AI-bubble question turns on that demand-side gap. It comes down to whether enterprises are turning AI spending into real value, and how fast.

Yet almost all of the debate runs on the supply side: hyperscaler capex, chip sales, valuations. Very little measures the value actually landing on the ground.

The AI Value Gap measures that missing side. It tracks verifiable value realisation, company by company, from what those doing the work disclose. The aim is simple: a gauge of where AI value is starting to emerge, and a benchmark for the initiatives large companies are running. For each one it sets what can be proven against what is claimed, and separates the signal from the noise.

"Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked." Our flagship quarterly report's name nods to Warren Buffett: AI is the rising tide, and the Value Realisation Index the measure for when it goes out.

About the author

AM

Amin Mrini

Senior AI operator · Author

Amin Mrini is Chief Commercial AI Officer at a FTSE 50 company, where he leads AI transformation and AI-powered product and customer initiatives across the Group.

He came to AI through strategy and operations leadership, with a career spanning consulting, digital transformation and operating roles in B2B information services, including COO and Chief Digital Officer roles. His work focuses on where AI can create meaningful business value, how products and workflows need to change around it, and how that value can be measured.

Separately, Amin is the author of The AI Value Gap, a weekly publication focused on enterprise AI execution and real-world impact, and the creator of the AI Value Realisation Index, which tracks the gap between corporate AI ambition, deployment and measurable results.

Advisor · Methodology & Framework

MW

Marcus Weldon

Former President, Bell Labs · Former CTO, Nokia

As President of Bell Labs, and Chief Technology Officer of Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent and Lucent Technologies, Marcus built a track record of turning pioneering research into product development and business strategy. He studied chemistry and computer science as an undergraduate before receiving his PhD in physical chemistry from Harvard and joining Bell Labs as a research scientist studying semiconductor surface interactions. His career evolved as he undertook a number of leading technology innovation roles over 20 years in the telecom sector, before founding his own technology consulting company. He recently served as the Neil Armstrong Visiting Professor at Purdue, lecturing on AI, and is currently the Newsweek senior contributing editor for AI. But he spends the majority of his time acting as an AI advisor to pioneering companies and organisations, including working with Amin on the AI Value Gap's methodology and scoring framework.