vendor bill
Fees paid to third-party model providers
3.1% to 4.5% of the quarter’s revenue; overlaps another channel, not added into totals
our inferencedisclosure: quantified· motive: product-defensive· before LLMs: new
The 10-Q gives the first traced figure for this channel, a level the company commits to pay. An agreement with a third-party AI service provider that began in December 2025, made to support the AI products, was amended during the quarter or after it: more for the first contract year, a total minimum commitment of over a term ending November 2028 against before, and remaining at the quarter end (claims c37, c38, c39). The difference, , was drawn between December 2025 and the quarter end; the filing does not give the quarter’s share. A share of it with an allowance for other providers comes to more than the cost-of-revenue cloud lines leave for AI, so the size, the ledger’s own, is capped at the ledger’s cost of serving AI products, : , which is of the AI product revenue estimate and sits at the ceiling the filed cost lines allow. The 10-Q names Anthropic and OpenAI among the providers whose prices set its costs and margins (claim c103).
Evidence: 16 quotes, 9 figures, 3 confounds, 1 from before coverage
What the company pays outside AI labs for the frontier models behind its AI products: Anthropic, OpenAI and Google models offered natively on the platform. The 10-Q for the quarter ended 2026-07-31 discloses a minimum purchase commitment with one third-party AI service provider, made to support the AI products, and what remains of it; usage bought through public cloud providers counts toward it. The fees sit in third-party cloud infrastructure expense inside cost of product revenue, which is the cost of serving AI products, so this channel overlaps that one, is sized no larger than it at any end of its range, and stays out of totals. No source says the agreement covers the company’s own internal use.
Why this motive
The 10-Q says frontier model providers hold substantial leverage over price, that the prices of providers it names significantly influence its costs and gross margins, and that the terms it accepts compress the margin of its AI offerings (claims c41, c103, c42). Usage is still charged to customers, the conduit reading of the prior quarters. The tells conflict, and the less durable motive is taken, as for the cost of serving AI products.
Before LLMs: new
The anchor names no model provider bill. The fiscal 2024 10-K describes Cortex, then in preview, as a managed service that serves LLMs, and cost of product revenue of is explained by cloud infrastructure and support staff alone. A token bill could not exist before LLMs, and the anchor is silent on its size.
“More favorable pricing with our cloud service providers, product improvements, scale in our public cloud data centers, and continued growth in large customer counts will contribute to year-over-year gross margin improvements.”
Figures
- Total minimum purchase commitment to the third-party AI service provider over the three-year term ending November 2028 · as-of 2026-07-31
- Additional spend committed for the first contract year under the amended agreement with a third-party AI service provider · as-of 2026-07-31
- Minimum purchase commitment to the third-party AI service provider still remaining · as-of 2026-07-31
- Amount drawn on the commitment between December 2025 and 2026-07-31 · as-of 2026-07-31
- Total minimum purchase commitment before the amendment · as-of 2026-07-31
- Estimated model provider fees as a share of estimated AI product revenue · 2026-CQ3
- Third-party cloud infrastructure expenses (including AI inference and GPUs) as a share of cost of product revenue, approximately · 2026-CQ3
- Third-party cloud infrastructure expenses as a share of cost of product revenue, prior-year quarter, approximately · 2025-CQ3
- Model and GPU cost of serving AI products for the quarter, estimated · 2026-CQ3
What else could explain it
- line composition: The commitment covers one provider. The fees sit in third-party cloud infrastructure expense in cost of product revenue, which the filing does not split.
- other: The quarter’s share of the drawdown is assumed; the drawdown itself is traced.
- other: An amount drawn on a commitment may include prepayment and is not necessarily the expense recognized; a drawdown larger than the cost lines can hold points that way.
Quotes
“the Company amended an existing three-year agreement with a third-party AI service provider that began in December 2025 to support the Company’s AI products.”
“Under the amended agreement, the Company has committed to spend an additional $190 million for the first contract year, increasing the total minimum purchase commitment over the three-year contract term ending November 2028 to $390 million.”
“As of July 31, 2026, the total remaining minimum purchase commitment was $270 million.”
“Services accessed through certain public cloud providers may be applied toward the Company’s contractual spend commitments under this amended agreement.”
“Frontier proprietary AI model providers have a strong market position and, as a result, enjoy substantial leverage over the prices of their technology and the commercial and product terms and conditions governing their use.”
“In order to gain and retain access to frontier AI models and remain competitive, we have accepted and may continue to accept pricing and other terms that deviate from our standard commercial terms, introduce increased risk related to operational complexities and liability exposure, and contribute to margin compression from our AI offerings.”
“In addition, our platform currently operates on public cloud infrastructure provided by Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure (Azure), and Google Cloud Platform (GCP), and services provided by these public cloud providers and frontier AI model providers such as Anthropic and OpenAI, and our costs and gross margins are significantly influenced by the prices we are able to negotiate with these providers, which in certain cases are also our competitors.”
“(1)Third-party cloud infrastructure expenses, including those related to AI inference and graphics processing units, incurred in connection with customers’ use of the Snowflake platform and the deployment and maintenance of the platform on public clouds, including different regional deployments, represented approximately 75% and 70% of cost of product revenue for the three months ended July 31, 2026 and 2025, respectively, and 74% and 69% of cost of product revenue for the six months ended July 31, 2026 and 2025, respectively.”
“As models have gotten more powerful, cost has absolutely become a concern.”
“We are absolutely seeing a lot of interest in being able to switch between different models and also to optimize cost.”
“Within our harnesses, many of the requests that we get from customers come in this mode that we call auto, where we can pair up the task with the model that is most appropriate for that particular task.”
“even the frontier models have been revising prices down on a regular basis and have been introducing additional models to their families, which have kept costs somewhat in check relative to the usage of organizations.”
“We have not changed the direction we've been on, which is we're not training models to go get into a frontier type of model.”
“To help our customers optimize cost, performance, and speed, we've introduced Cortex AI Gateway, which dynamically routes each task to the right model based on customer-defined policies and real-world performance data with cost and governance controls built in.”
“These increases were primarily due to an increase of $113.6 million and $199.7 million in third-party cloud infrastructure expenses (including those related to AI inference and GPUs) for the three and six months ended July 31, 2026, respectively, compared to the same periods in the prior year, mainly as a result of increased customer consumption of our platform.”
“We have heard from many, many customers that they made large commitments to one specific model company, and later on are saying, "Oh, I should have wanted to do a different model." Whereas the commitment to Snowflake gives them that flexibility, and as Sridhar said, automatic routing into what is the right model for the right task.”
By quarter
- Q1 2026described · our inference · conduit · $9.0mn to $39mn
- Q2 2026described · our inference · conduit · $24mn to $50mn
- Q3 2026quantified · our inference · product-defensive · $48mn to $70mn