I have been using ChatGPT for research and rephrasing purposes for two years now. In its initial phase, the research was generic. But I found my own way to make the most of it: I gave video transcripts as input to gather meaningful quotes from experts. AI helped me with quick quotes that I can use in my writing.
As ChatGPT evolved, its research started getting better. At present, ChatGPT’s Deep Research is exceptionally accurate as it supplies links to information sources that I can verify if needed. However, it has its limits on the Free and Plus plans. I decided to find an alternative AI chatbot and compared Claude vs. ChatGPT.
I started evaluating Anthropic’s Claude, not just for research but also for purposes relevant to my role as a content marketer. After spending some serious time with both platforms, I found that ChatGPT is great for deep research and image generation, while Claude is best for creative writing and coding.
Curious about my results? Let’s dig into the research on it!
| Feature | Claude | ChatGPT |
| G2 rating | 4.3/5 | 4.7/5 |
| Best for | Creative writing and coding | Deep research and image generation |
| Research capability | Surface-level research with Claude 3.7 Sonnet. Research features are in beta testing. | Deep Research capabilities with information from credible sources. |
| Writing and editing | Engaging writing style that supplies complex information in a simple way. | Writing is simple but often academic until specified otherwise. |
| Coding | Transforms complex functionality expectations into working code. | Doesn’t handle complex functionality requirements effectively. |
| Image generation | Hallucinates and produces less accurate images. | Creates images as expected in the prompt. |
| Free plan | Available | Available |
| Pricing | Pro: $17/month Max: $100/month Team: $25/user |
Plus: $20/month Pro: $200/month Team: $25/month/user |
Note: Both Anthropic and OpenAI frequently roll out new updates to these AI chatbots. The details below reflect capabilities as of April 2025 and may change over time.
Claude does a good job of writing creatively, while ChatGPT shows decent capabilities for researching and generating images. The choice between the two ultimately converges into what is the one thing you want the AI sidekick to automate, which saves a lot of your time.
Before we begin the head-to-head testing, I want you to examine the AI chatbot platforms and their features more closely. They're both impressive, but the devil's in the details, isn't it? Let's break them down and see what sets them apart.
Let’s talk specifics. Here’s where Claude and ChatGPT set themselves apart:
There are a few similarities between Claude and ChatGPT, including:
To make sure it was a fair fight, I used their free versions of Claude and ChatGPT, and tested them in research, writing and rephrasing, coding, and image generation capabilities.
I ensured complete fairness by using identical prompts for both, with no modifications or adjustments, just the same questions throughout. Finally, I evaluated the response for its accuracy, creativity, and usability.
I categorize an output as accurate when the prompt's response is as expected. The response's engagement and structure displayed creativity. Lastly, the ease of using a response as is determines its usability.
To add other user perspectives, I also cross-checked my findings with G2 reviews to see how different users experience these models.
Disclaimer: AI responses may vary based on phrasing, session history, and system updates for the same prompts. These results reflect the models' capabilities at the time of testing.
I explored both platforms in-depth, highlighting why certain features stand out and what they mean for real users. By testing each tool, I uncovered its strengths and limitations for a clear, hands-on comparison. Let’s get started!
To test both tools' research capabilities, I tested them with the same prompt, “Compare Claude and ChatGPT in terms of research, writing, coding, and pricing. The purpose is to research the two platforms.”
Claude gave me a good overview of the difference between the two platforms in bullet points for each capability. Although this was helpful, I doubted its credibility since no information sources were mentioned with it, where I could verify the facts.
Claude gave me a high-level understanding of the differences, which helped me summarize. However, this research wouldn’t help much in making informed conclusions since verifying its accuracy was tricky. Claude’s Research is still in beta and is available in only a few regions, including the US, Japan, and Brazil.
ChatGPT, on the other hand, has a Deep Research feature in its free version. It provides comprehensive information on the differences between Claude and ChatGPT with reliable (and clickable) sources. This allows me to personally verify the accuracy of the pointers I’d use to construct my perspective on the two tools.
Moreover, you get a complete list of sources and citations that ChatGPT used as a reference for the research. This makes ChatGPT’s response more credible than Claude's.
Based on my experience on the platform, I feel ChatGPT does better in research than Claude.
Winner: ChatGPT
I compared Claude and ChatGPT based on a prompt, “Write an informal essay on AI taking over the world.” Claude gave me an option to select the writing style while supplying the prompt.
Claude's response appeared to be more engaging than ChatGPT's. Claude used a Terminator analogy to help me visualize its writing. It used short sentences to maintain better readability and kept the tone conversational.
When I tested the same prompt in ChatGPT, I was surprised to see the result. The context it sets is better and more interesting than Claude's. However, the writing style is pretty bland. ChatGPT covers different angles of the topic while conveying its real-world impact. At the end of its response, ChatGPT asks if a user would have a more conversational or humorous tone.
Claude and ChatGPT are tied in terms of writing. I tested the two platforms' rephrasing capabilities to find a clear winner.
I gave them a prompt: “Edit this to transform it into a conversation between two people. Use first- and second-person narrative. Write in active voice. Use a more humorous tone.”
While rephrasing and editing the response, Claude does a great job of transforming the essay into a dialogue. It suggests the emotions or actions a person takes in addition to delivering their dialogue. You can easily convert it into a skit or a role play without making a lot of edits.
ChatGPT did a decent job of transforming this content into a dialogue. However, the flow and vocabulary weren’t as good as Claude's. Therefore, when it comes to writing and rephrasing, Claude is a more suitable choice.
Winner: Claude
I tested the coding capabilities of the two AI chatbot platforms based on the prompt below.
I instructed the tools to write code for the homepage of DAYFIVE, a content marketing services company. I briefly overviewed how I visualized the homepage, including the necessary elements.
I was amazed to see the result on both platforms.
Anthropic’s Claude gave me a vibrant design. It delivered on the complex request, where I wanted testimonials to slide horizontally on scrolling. Overall, it gave me a code structure to work on to edit to make changes in the copy and graphics.
I used the same prompt on ChatGPT. However, it didn’t add horizontal movement to the testimonial. I was able to scroll through the testimonials manually. Overall, I liked Claude’s output better than ChatGPT’s when it comes to coding.
When it comes to functionality, ChatGPT allowed me to transform the HTML5 code into JavaScript and various other languages. In terms of flexibility, ChatGPT offered better options.
Based on what I observed, there is a tie between Claude and ChatGPT for a coding use case. A coding expert will be able to see the differences more clearly.
Winner: Tie (both Claude and ChatGPT)
I tested the two AI chatbot tools for their image generation capabilities on the same prompt. I asked the tools to “Create an image to depict a sunset with orange sky and a person standing in the middle of a lush green landscape. The person writes with a feather and sketches the landscape in their notebook.”
The winner stood out, and the output generated was way better than its counterpart. Here’s what Claude generated as a response to the image creation task:
Claude didn’t do a good job in terms of accuracy and visualization.
ChatGPT generated a beautiful picture that was close to expectations in the prompt. Here’s ChatGPT’s output:
Compared to Claude, ChatGPT’s free plan creates better images based on a prompt.
Winner: ChatGPT
Both Claude and ChatGPT offer a free plan. Claude’s paid plans’ pricing is as follows:
ChatGPT’s pricing is somewhat similar, except for a few plan differences. ChatGPT’s paid plans cost:
The ChatGPT team plan requires more than 2 years and is billed annually.
Here’s the overview of ChatGPT pricing plans:
ChatGPT charges a little more than Claude in its mid-tier plan. However, this is justified considering its advanced research and image generation capabilities. At the same time, Claude offers decent value in writing and editing. I feel it’s a tie between the two AI platforms when it comes to pricing.
Winner: Tie (both Claude and ChatGPT)
Here’s a table showing the web builder software that wins.
| Feature and functionality | Winner | Why it won |
| Research capabilities | ChatGPT 🏆 | ChatGPT won here with its deep research capability. Claude’s Research is still in its beta testing phase. |
| Writing and rephrasing | Claude 🏆 | Claude offered a simple way to choose a writing style and deliver more engaging content. ChatGPT’s writing felt more academic. |
| Coding | Tie | Claude delivered a more visually appealing outcome with functionality as expected in the prompt. ChatGPT offered more flexibility in transforming code into different languages. |
| Image Generation | ChatGPT 🏆 | ChatGPT was able to create the image as expected in the prompt. Claude showed hallucinations. |
| Pricing | Tie | ChatGPT is slightly expensive but justifies it with its accuracy, research capabilities, and image creation proficiency. Claude does a good job of writing and rephrasing. |
I looked at review data on G2 based on real users’ experiences to find strengths and adoption patterns for Claude and ChatGPT. Here's what stood out:
Have more questions? Find more answers below.
Currently, Claude 3 (Anthropic's latest family of AI models, including Claude 3 Opus, Sonnet, and Haiku) has a knowledge cutoff of August 2023.
That means it was trained on data available up until that point and does not have built-in awareness of events or developments after that date unless updated through external tools or plugins.
As of May 2025, the knowledge cut-off for ChatGPT (GPT-4-turbo) is October 2023.
This means the model was trained on data available up to that date and doesn't have knowledge of events or developments after October 2023 unless accessed through tools like web browsing.
People like Claude for coding and reasoning. Here’s what Amir, a G2’s validated reviewer, comments on why they like Claude:
“Claude AI is excellent for coding assistance, especially with its clear and structured explanations. It provides solutions and explains the logic, which helps me understand complex code and learn as I go. It’s also very responsive, making it feel like a real-time coding partner. Moreover, having the ability to organize multiple files in parallel provides a seamless experience.”
- Claude AI Review, Amir S, Tech Lead and Technical Architect.
People like ChatGPT for its image creation and research capabilities. Here’s what
Shilpi, a G2’s validated reviewer, says about ChatGPT:
“It's simple to use, and responses are fast. I use it a lot in my daily tasks because it can produce good-quality images, which I use in my PowerPoint. It's also web and API friendly. I also use it for code generation and debugging, so I can say the integration is relatively straightforward. Overall, I found it very easy and user-friendly.
- ChatGPT Review, Shilpi M, Embedded Software Engineer.
Although I found Claude to be better at writing, rephrasing, and code generation, I have second thoughts about its reliability. Its responses in my testing of research and image generation features make me question its accuracy in other use cases as well.
ChatGPT did a decent job for me when it came to research and image generation, especially in terms of accuracy. This increased the reliability of the AI chatbot solution. It has its limits on the Free and Plus plans. However, I’d want to test other alternatives before onboarding a new AI sidekick.
If you want to compare ChatGPT with other alternatives, check out my colleague Soundarya’s blog on Gemini vs. ChatGPT.
On November 30, 2022, I, like millions of others, tried ChatGPT for the first time, and wow, a...
by Soundarya Jayaraman
Understanding artificial intelligence (AI) applications and their impact in 2025 Artificial...
by Evan Sherbert
As a content writer with over a decade of experience, I’ve spent countless hours perfecting my...
by Sudipto Paul