When we talk about conversational ai chatbots, the first name that usually comes to mind is ChatGPT. Released to the public in November 2022, ChatGPT quickly took the world by storm. It allows users to generate long texts, solve math problems, perform coding tasks, and even write poetry, all through simple prompts. ChatGPT has become so popular that many people now use “ai” and “ChatGPT” interchangeably.
However, while ChatGPT undeniably sparked the generative ai revolution and remains a leader in this space, other major language models have since emerged, including Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and Claude by Anthropic. I have personally tested all of these chatbots over an extended period, and I must admit that I have developed a preference for both ChatGPT 4.o and, more recently, Claude Sonnet 3.5. Both offer unique strengths, but I still turn to ChatGPT for most tasks.
Before exploring the comparison, it is crucial to note that Claude is developed by Anthropic, while ChatGPT is a product of OpenAI. Both platforms offer various models designed to meet different user needs. Here is a quick look at the models available for each:
| Claude Models | ChatGPT Models |
|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 3.5 | GPT-4 |
| Claude 3 Opus | GPT-4o Mini |
| Haiku by Claude 3 | GPT-4 |
Additionally, both Claude and ChatGPT offer premium versions, each priced at $20 per month. These premium plans unlock enhanced features and access to their most advanced models, offering better performance, speed, and accuracy. While both have free tiers, the paid versions are highly recommended for users who need the full range of capabilities these ai models can provide.
Claude vs ChatGPT
The following comparison is based on my own experience with Claude and ChatGPT, as well as information from Zapier, which has a more comprehensive comparison of the two chatbots.
1. Context window
In ai terminology, a context window is the amount of text (or tokens) used in prompts fed into the large language model. The larger the context window, the better, as it allows the model to process and retain more information from the input, improving its ability to generate coherent and contextually accurate responses. On this criterion, Claude is the winner, with a large context window of 200,000 tokens, while ChatGPT lags behind with a context window of 128,000 tokens. This expanded context window is especially useful for generating complex and lengthy content, as it allows Claude to maintain continuity and comprehension across extended interactions, which is particularly beneficial in academic, professional, or detailed creative writing tasks.
2. Internet access
When it comes to internet access, ChatGPT is the winner. Claude has no internet access and works as a standalone system, though you can always provide him with relevant text to build his context. Internet access is especially useful for retrieving up-to-date information, verifying facts, and providing real-time information, making ChatGPT more versatile in situations where current data or external references are crucial.
3. Factual accuracy and consistency
The latest ChatGPT (i.e. ChatGPT 4.0 and 4.0 Mini) and Claude (i.e. Claude 3.5 Sonnet) models have significantly improved their ability to provide factual data with a higher degree of accuracy compared to previous versions. However, “hallucinations” (instances where models generate false or misleading information) continue to present a serious challenge. For this reason, I strongly recommend verifying data generated by ai models, especially in critical contexts. While both models perform well, they are still tied on this criterion, with a slight advantage leaning towards Claude 3.5 for its improved handling of factual consistency.
4. Logical and mathematical reasoning
Zapier’s analysis of the two models concludes that ChatGPT 4.0 performs slightly better than Claude 3.5 when it comes to complex tasks involving math, physics, and puzzles. ChatGPT 4.0 tends to excel at handling complex problems and logical reasoning challenges, making it a preferred choice for academic or scientific research. However, when it comes to coding, Claude 3.5 takes the lead. It outperforms ChatGPT in code generation, debugging, and understanding, making it a stronger choice for programming-related tasks. This makes each model specialize in different areas of logical reasoning depending on the task at hand.
5. Content writing
In my own experience, Claude 3.5 Sonnet produces more human-like texts with better stylistic choices, creating a natural flow in your writing. This observation matches Zapier’s conclusion that Claude produces texts with a higher degree of creativity and a more human-like tone. Additionally, when proofreading and fact-checking were tested, Claude performed better at identifying errors and providing clear, actionable corrections. Its editing capabilities make it an excellent tool for refining content and ensuring polished, well-structured writing. This gives Claude an edge in tasks that require a creative touch and meticulous editing.
6. Third-party integrations
ChatGPT’s ability to integrate with third-party applications is a powerful feature that allows it to connect with specialized GPTs that enhance its functionality, such as image generation, Internet access, and domain-specific tasks. These integrations significantly expand ChatGPT’s versatility, allowing it to tackle a broader range of tasks beyond text-based outputs. In contrast, Claude’s standard offering lags behind in this area, lacking similar integration capabilities. This limitation makes ChatGPT a stronger choice for users who require multi-functional performance through external tools and plugins.
Before concluding, check out this comparison table published by Anthropic comparing Claude, ChatGPT, Llama and Gemini.
Related: Top 10 ai Tools for Teachers
Final thoughts
I hope you found this comparison useful. As I mentioned earlier, while both Claude and ChatGPT stand out as two of the most powerful chatbots available, each has its own set of strengths and limitations. Personally, I tend to prefer Claude for projects that require handling large windows of context, such as research papers or book chapters, where its capability really shines. However, the choice between the two ultimately depends on the specific needs of the task at hand.
