ChatGPT vs. Claude vs. Google Gemini: Full Report and Comparison of models, capabilities, plans, and integrations (Mid‑2025 overview)
- Graziano Stefanelli
- Jul 28
- 50 min read
ChatGPT, Claude, and Google Gemini are the three leading AI chat platforms as of mid‑2025.
Each offers multiple models, both free and paid, with different capabilities, performance levels, and integration options.
ChatGPT includes GPT‑4o and the o3 series, available through the web app, mobile app, and API. Claude runs Claude 3.5 Sonnet for free and Claude 3.5 Opus under a paid tier. Google Gemini provides Gemini 2.5 Flash for all users and Gemini 2.5 Pro in the Gemini Advanced subscription. Each model has different strengths in tasks such as reasoning, code generation, writing, and handling large inputs.
The comparison that we share here also covers how these models are deployed, where they are available, what kind of subscriptions they offer, how long their context windows are, how fast they respond, and how they handle user data. It also includes support for images, file uploads, voice, and multi-language interactions, as well as differences in app integration, privacy policies, transparency of model capabilities, and enterprise features.
Overview of Latest Model Versions (Mid-2025)
OpenAI (ChatGPT): As of mid-2025, OpenAI’s flagship model is GPT-4.5, an enhanced version of GPT-4 (sometimes referenced as GPT-4.1 for a code-optimized variant). GPT-4.5 was introduced in April 2025 for ChatGPT Pro users and later rolled out to Plus users. The original GPT-4 (now termed GPT-4o) remains available, and OpenAI also offers specialized models like GPT-4.1 (tuned for coding tasks) and a fast GPT-4.1 “mini” model. All these models power ChatGPT’s various modes (e.g. default, Code Interpreter, etc.), with GPT-4.5 being the most capable general model. OpenAI has not disclosed the parameter counts or full training data details for these models (citing competitive and safety reasons), but GPT-4.5 was trained with new techniques and larger-scale data built upon GPT-4. GPT-4.5 is natively multimodal to an extent – it supports image inputs and file uploads, and integrates search capabilities – though it does not yet directly produce images or audio in ChatGPT. Its knowledge cutoff has been extended via retrieval (live web search integration) to provide up-to-date information (GPT-4o’s pre-training cutoff was 2021). In practice, GPT-4.5 is described as having higher “EQ” (emotional intelligence), creativity, and steerability than GPT-4o, at the cost of being extremely compute-intensive (hence offered initially only to higher-tier subscribers).
Anthropic (Claude): Anthropic’s latest generation is Claude 4, released in May 2025. Claude 4 comes in two main variants: Claude 4 Opus (the largest, highest-performing model) and Claude 4 Sonnet (a slightly smaller, faster model). These succeeded the Claude 3 series (Claude 3, 3.5, 3.7) which were introduced through 2024. Claude 4 Opus and Sonnet are both state-of-the-art in capability – in Anthropic’s internal evaluations, Claude 4 (especially Opus) outperforms the original GPT-4 and Google’s Gemini on many knowledge and reasoning benchmarks. For example, Claude 3 (2024) was already touted as “more skilled...and better at reasoning” than GPT-4 and Gemini’s model at the time, and Claude 4 has further improved. Claude 4 retains Anthropic’s signature 100k+ token context window (expanded to 200,000 tokens in Claude 3.5/4 for the default models, with up to 1 million tokens possible in special cases or enterprise settings) – giving it industry-leading long input capacity. Claude 4 is also natively multimodal in input: it can accept uploads of various file types (PDF, images, documents, etc.) and will analyze or summarize their content. However, Claude’s outputs are text-only; it does not generate images or audio. Anthropic has been relatively transparent about how Claude is trained (using their “Constitutional AI” technique for alignment – see Safety & Alignment below), but like OpenAI, they do not publish parameter counts or the full composition of the training set. The Claude 4 models are available via a web interface (claude.ai) and API, with Claude 4 Sonnet notably available even to free users (making it “unusually accessible for a model of this quality”). The more powerful Claude 4 Opus is reserved for paid tiers.
Google (Gemini): Google’s next-generation AI model family is Gemini, and by mid-2025 the latest release is Gemini 2.5. This succeeded the initial Gemini 1.0/1.5 (introduced late 2023) and Gemini 2.0 (early 2024) models. The top model is Gemini 2.5 Pro, which Google describes as its “most powerful thinking model” with state-of-the-art performance in complex reasoning, coding, and multimodal understanding. Alongside Pro, Google offers Gemini 2.5 Flash and Flash-Lite variants – these are optimized for faster, cost-efficient inference with slightly lower capability. All Gemini 2.5 models are deeply multimodal: they can accept text, images, audio, and even video inputs natively, and primarily produce text outputs. (Certain specializations of Gemini can also output audio or images, such as text-to-speech and image generation models within the Gemini API.) Notably, Gemini’s architecture incorporates techniques from Google DeepMind’s AlphaGo—Demis Hassabis has noted that Gemini combines the large language modeling of models like GPT-4 with the planning and reinforcement learning techniques of AlphaGo, aiming to imbue stronger problem-solving skills. Google has not released parameter counts or detailed training data info for Gemini, but has indicated it was trained on a vast multimodal dataset (text, images, code, etc.) and with significant computational expense (comparable to or exceeding GPT-4’s training cost). By mid-2025, Gemini 2.5’s knowledge cutoff extends into 2024 (the models have a knowledge cutoff of August 2024 for 2.x series), and Google has integrated it across many products. “Gemini” also refers to Google’s consumer-facing AI assistant (formerly known as Bard) – Bard was rebranded to Gemini in early 2024, with Gemini Advanced as a premium tier chatbot using the most capable model (Gemini 1.0 Ultra initially, now 2.5 Pro). In summary, Google’s Gemini 2.5 Pro is a cutting-edge multimodal model on par with the latest from OpenAI/Anthropic, with particular strengths in multimodal tasks and integration with tools.
Note on model naming: OpenAI’s nomenclature: “GPT-4o” refers to the original GPT-4, while GPT-4.5 is the newer enhanced model. OpenAI’s “o1”/“o3” models (mentioned in some OpenAI materials) are experimental “reasoning” models with extended thinking (these are not mainstream chat models but used internally for research). Anthropic names each major version numerically (Claude 2, 3, 4) and uses literary terms (Haiku, Sonnet, Opus) to denote model size/strength (Haiku < Sonnet < Opus). Google’s Gemini versions are numbered (1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5) and suffixed with tiers (Flash, Pro, etc.). “Gemini Advanced” typically refers to consumer access to the Pro model via subscription.
Core Capabilities Comparison
General Knowledge and Language Understanding
All three models are top-tier in general knowledge and language understanding, routinely outperforming or matching human experts on academic benchmarks. OpenAI’s GPT-4 family has demonstrated extraordinary breadth of knowledge (its predecessor GPT-4 scored around 86% on the MMLU academic knowledge benchmark) and GPT-4.5 continues this trend. OpenAI reports GPT-4.5 to be slightly better than GPT-4o on factual and commonsense tasks, thanks to training on more data and with “scalable supervision” techniques. It also has improved multilingual capabilities (e.g. ~85% on a multilingual MMLU test). Claude 4 likewise has near human-level knowledge integration; Claude 3 was said to exhibit “near-human levels of comprehension and fluency on complex tasks”. Claude’s knowledge base was updated through early 2024, and Claude 4’s knowledge cutoff is around mid-2024. It excels at understanding long or complex inputs due to its massive context window (discussed below), which allows it to absorb entire documents or books of information for use in a conversation. Google’s Gemini 2.5 has the advantage of integrating live search and up-to-date information from the web. In fact, Gemini’s API offers an optional “Grounding with Google Search” feature where the model can automatically fetch and cite information from the web during queries. This means Gemini can provide current real-time knowledge (at some cost in API usage), whereas ChatGPT and Claude rely on their training data or user-provided info unless explicitly connected to external tools. On standard knowledge tests, Gemini’s performance is comparable to GPT-4: early versions (Gemini 1.0 Ultra) were roughly on par with GPT-4’s scores, and by 2.5 Pro Google claims it leads certain leaderboards. For example, Gemini 2.5 Pro is noted to be top-ranked on LMArena, a community benchmark aggregating language tasks. All three can handle nuanced questions, multi-turn explanations, and open-ended Q&A with a high degree of fluency. In practice, ChatGPT (GPT-4.5) and Claude might have a slight edge in strict factual accuracy on long-tail queries, as early reviews of Gemini Advanced (1.0) noted it sometimes produced more factual errors or contradictions than ChatGPT. However, Gemini’s integration with search and its “world model” approach (drawing on simulation and planning techniques) are intended to mitigate hallucinations and improve factual grounding over time. All three systems still occasionally hallucinate (output false but confident-sounding statements), a common limitation of large language models, so each has ongoing efforts to reduce that.
In terms of language breadth and fluency, all models support dozens of languages. ChatGPT and Claude are primarily English-centric but have been tested in many languages (OpenAI’s GPT-4 was evaluated in 26 languages with strong results, and GPT-4.5 presumably maintains that). Claude has a similarly broad multilingual capability. Google’s Gemini, being the backbone of Google Translate and other products, is highly multilingual by design. Each model can produce human-like, coherent essays, summaries, and answers, with ChatGPT often praised for its polished writing style and Claude for its friendly, helpful tone (Anthropic tuned Claude with a “constitution” that encourages helpfulness). GPT-4.5 specifically was trained to have more natural conversational flow and interpret subtle user intent better than GPT-4, making it very adept at dialog. One distinguishing aspect: personality and tone. ChatGPT tends to have a neutral, formal tone by default (though it can be customized via system or custom instructions). Claude is often verbose and extraordinarily polite, sometimes to a fault (earlier versions were criticized for over-refusing or giving lecture-like answers due to strict alignment), though Claude 3/4 have improved balance and are less likely to misunderstand a harmless query as disallowed. Gemini’s tone (as observed in the consumer Gemini Assistant) is a bit more “chummy” and casual, inserting friendly banter – some found it overly wordy or apologetic in refusals compared to ChatGPT’s more terse style. These tonal differences can be adjusted, but out-of-the-box each has a slightly different voice shaped by its training approach.
Reasoning and Complexity Handling
When it comes to complex reasoning – multi-step problems, logical puzzles, mathematical reasoning, etc. – all three models are among the best in the world, but they have different strengths due to their design philosophies. GPT-4 was known for its strong logical reasoning abilities (e.g. it performs very well on the Big-Bench Hard (BBH) suite and logical puzzles). GPT-4.5 builds on this and introduces internal improvements but interestingly does not use an explicit “chain-of-thought” by default: OpenAI noted GPT-4.5 “doesn’t think before it responds,” in contrast to some experimental models that use explicit reasoning steps. Instead, GPT-4.5 relies on its large implicit knowledge. OpenAI is also developing separate “reasoning” models (the “o-series” like OpenAI o1, o3) that do perform step-by-step thinking, and these can be used in tools or chain-of-thought prompting scenarios. In ChatGPT, users can invoke step-by-step reasoning by asking the model to “show its work,” but GPT-4.5 by design tries to integrate reasoning into a single cohesive answer. Even without explicit chain-of-thought mode, GPT-4.5 demonstrates state-of-the-art problem solving – OpenAI’s evals showed major gains on challenging math, science, and coding tasks compared to GPT-4o. For instance, on a math Olympiad (AIME) dataset, GPT-4.5 scored 36.7%, up from GPT-4o’s 9.3% (and approaching human competitor level). It also improved multi-step commonsense reasoning and instruction following in long conversations. ChatGPT Plus/Pro now even allows automatic multi-step tool use – the model can autonomously perform multiple search queries for complex questions (the “Advanced Data Analysis” formerly Code Interpreter, can do multi-step computations too).
Claude 4, on the other hand, explicitly excels at “extended thinking.” Anthropic introduced an “Extended Thinking” mode in Claude 3.7/4, which allows the user (or system) to toggle between rapid responses and deep, step-by-step reasoning. In practice, this means Claude can internally deliberate more when needed, making it very powerful on tasks like complex logical puzzles, lengthy analytical questions, or code debugging. Early tests of Claude 4 found it remarkably good at multi-step reasoning and tool use. In fact, Claude 4’s Opus model is designed for “reasoning-heavy tasks like agentic search and long-running workflows”. It can maintain coherent step-by-step plans over thousands of tokens. Anthropic reports that Claude 4 dominates several reasoning benchmarks: for example, Claude 4 Opus leads the field on SWE-bench Verified, a rigorous coding+reasoning benchmark (scoring ~72.5%) – significantly above GPT-4.1 (≈54.6%) and even above Gemini 2.5 (≈63.8%) on the same test. Claude’s ability to “think out loud” and use tools like web search during its chain-of-thought is a “secret weapon” according to some analyses. Anthropic enabled Claude to invoke a web browser or other tools in its reasoning (for instance, Claude has a built-in web search feature as of 2025). This effectively gives Claude an agent-like capability to fact-check or retrieve info mid-thought. The combination of a huge memory window and constitutional training to reason ethically makes Claude 4 extremely competent at complex Q&A and troubleshooting problems. One caveat: because Claude sometimes leans into exhaustive reasoning, it may produce very lengthy explanations by default. Users often find Claude’s answers more discursive than ChatGPT’s. But for those who want a thorough, stepwise breakdown (e.g. a line-by-line code analysis or a detailed logical proof), Claude is excellent. Its near “perfect recall” over long contexts also means it can draw connections across a lengthy conversation or document better than others.
Gemini 2.5 introduces Google’s take on reasoning: a feature called “Thinking” mode with budgets. In the Gemini API, the Pro and Flash models have “thinking on by default,” meaning the model will automatically allocate extra computation to tricky queries. Developers can even configure a “thinking budget” – essentially telling Gemini how much time/steps it can spend reasoning on a query. This is analogous to giving the model more internal deliberation for complex tasks. The Flash variant is described as the first “hybrid reasoning model” that can trade off speed vs depth. In practice, Gemini’s reasoning prowess is very high, but earlier versions (Gemini 1.0/2.0) were slightly behind GPT-4 in pure reasoning benchmarks. By Gemini 2.5 Pro, Google claims parity or superiority on many fronts. For instance, Gemini 2.5 Pro reportedly achieved 80+% on logical reasoning tests and even demonstrated planning abilities in tasks like code generation and web development (it leads the WebDev Arena leaderboard for creating web app code). One benchmark, Humanity’s Last Exam (a collection of extremely challenging questions), saw Gemini 2.5 Pro setting a new state-of-the-art score of ~18.8% (higher is better) without tool use. Moreover, Gemini’s multimodal context aids its reasoning: it can, for example, interpret a diagram or chart image and incorporate that into logical reasoning, something text-only models struggle with. On the whole, by late 2025 the gap in pure reasoning ability among GPT-4.5, Claude 4, and Gemini 2.5 is small – all are extraordinarily capable. But notable strengths include: Claude’s extended chain-of-thought and reliability on very lengthy, complex tasks; GPT-4.5’s combination of knowledge and faster response (it’s optimized to “think” efficiently rather than verbosely); and Gemini’s planning and multimodal reasoning (especially for problems involving images or where a dynamic tool use is beneficial).
In mathematical reasoning specifically: GPT-4.5 shows major improvement (as mentioned, solving many math competition problems). Claude has improved its math too (Claude 2 and 4 are less prone to arithmetic errors than Claude 1 was). Claude 4 can also use its tool mode to call a calculator if integrated. Gemini likely leverages Google’s strength in math via both its training and the ability to execute code for calculation (Gemini’s Codey/CLI integration – see Coding below – means it can run Python code to verify answers). Thus, all three can handle everything from basic arithmetic to calculus and algebra word problems, but each may go about it differently (ChatGPT might directly give the answer with an explanation, Claude might provide an in-depth stepwise proof, Gemini might do a quick internal calculation or search for a formula).
Coding and Programming Assistance
Coding is an area where these models have seen rapid advancement – and indeed have some differentiation. At a high level, all three can write code, debug, and explain code in multiple programming languages, making them powerful coding assistants. However, Claude 4 currently holds an edge in coding benchmarks and agentic coding ability. As noted, Claude 4 (Opus and Sonnet) scored ~72.7% on the SWE-Bench Verified coding benchmark, significantly outperforming GPT-4.1 (which scored ~54.6%) and Google’s Gemini 2.5 (~63.8%). Claude’s performance translates to real-world coding skill: users and evaluations have found Claude is excellent at generating correct, functional code, even for complex tasks like multi-file projects or tricky algorithms. Anthropic even launched a tool called Claude Code (in research preview) that integrates Claude into a developer’s command-line, allowing it to autonomously handle coding tasks from the terminal. Claude can also execute code internally in some settings (Anthropic added a “code execution tool” for developers), meaning it can run and test the code it writes. All this makes Claude extremely powerful for programming help – it not only writes code, but can iteratively debug it. For example, one team had Claude Opus 4 autonomously code on an open-source project for seven hours, with Claude planning and adjusting its own code – something highlighted as a leap forward. Claude also has a feature called “Artifacts” which was introduced in Claude 3.5: it can create and edit code in a side panel and even preview rendered outputs like SVG drawings or web pages in real-time. This interactive development approach, coupled with its long context (e.g. you can paste an entire codebase up to 200k tokens for Claude to analyze), makes it a phenomenal coding partner.
OpenAI’s ChatGPT was the early leader in coding (GPT-4 famously scored ~80% on the LeetCode-style HumanEval benchmark, well above previous models). With GPT-4.1, OpenAI delivered a model specialized for coding tasks, further refining instruction-following and accuracy in code generation. GPT-4.1 is described as “even stronger at precise instruction following and web development tasks” than GPT-4o. It’s offered in ChatGPT’s interface (Plus/Pro users can pick GPT-4.1 when coding). Additionally, GPT-4.1 mini serves as a fast, lightweight coding helper for simpler tasks. ChatGPT also includes Advanced Data Analysis (previously called Code Interpreter) across Plus/Pro, which lets the model execute Python code in a sandbox, handle file uploads, and return results (useful for data analysis, plotting, etc.). So while GPT-4.5 (the general model) might not have the absolute highest coding benchmark score, OpenAI’s ecosystem provides targeted tools: GPT-4.1 excels at producing clean, correct code quickly, and the Code Interpreter plugin allows it to test code and work with data. In practical coding scenarios, ChatGPT remains extremely capable – it reliably generates code in languages like Python, JavaScript, C++, etc., explains code, translates between languages, and fixes bugs. Its earlier weakness in lengthy code context is mitigated by the larger context window and better attention (GPT-4 models can handle around 25,000 tokens of code input in the 32k mode). There is also function calling support in the API: developers can define functions, and GPT-4.5 can decide to “call” them with JSON arguments. This is more about tool use, but it’s very useful in coding assistant scenarios (e.g. ChatGPT can call a compile() or run_tests() function to verify its code).
Google’s approach is two-fold: Gemini CLI / Codey and the general Gemini model. Google has integrated coding deeply into Gemini, especially with what they call “Gemini Code Assist”. By mid-2025, Gemini’s developer offerings include a specialized code model (Codey was the PaLM 2 code model, now presumably evolved under Gemini Flash). The Gemini 2.5 Pro model itself “excels at coding and complex reasoning”, and Google evidence shows strong performance – however, earlier tests (e.g. in early 2024) found Bard (Gemini) lagging behind ChatGPT in certain coding tasks. A ZDNet evaluator in Feb 2024 found Gemini Advanced struggled with some simple coding challenges that ChatGPT aced. For example, in writing a WordPress plugin and debugging it, Gemini’s solutions initially didn’t work, whereas ChatGPT’s did. This indicated that Gemini 1.0 had room to improve in reliable code generation. Google responded by quickly iterating: by mid-2025, Gemini 2.5 introduced “Gemini CLI (the coder’s best friend)” and code-specific enhancements in the Gemini app (as noted in Google’s July 2025 Gemini Drop). The Gemini API also allows executing code: Gemini can use a “Live API” feature to have low-latency bidirectional interactions, which include code execution in certain contexts. In Google Cloud’s IDE integrations (like Colab, Android Studio, VS Code plugins), Gemini Codey provides autocompletion and chat help. By the numbers, Gemini 2.5 Pro’s coding is strong (63.8% on the SWE benchmark vs GPT-4.1’s ~54%), but still a notch below Claude’s best. However, Gemini shines in front-end and multimodal coding tasks. It leads a WebDev Arena contest for generating web app code with visual appeal. And its ability to see and generate images means it can do things like generating an HTML/CSS layout and showing you a preview image of it, which is unique. Google also tightly integrated Gemini into Android development workflows, suggesting it’s very capable at mobile app code.
In summary: Claude 4 is arguably the current coding champion (with highest benchmark scores and an agent-like coding mode). ChatGPT (GPT-4.5/4.1) is extremely capable as well – it may be slightly less specialized than Claude for very hard coding challenges, but it’s faster and more streamlined for average coding tasks, and its sandbox execution is a huge plus. Gemini 2.5 has caught up fast, offering robust coding help especially when tasks involve integrating multiple media or Google’s ecosystem (e.g. building an app that uses Google APIs, or needing to generate code and then immediately visualize the output). All three can handle tasks like: explaining a code snippet, writing unit tests, converting pseudocode to code, optimizing an algorithm, or using an API based on documentation. Users will find any of them a massive productivity boost for programming, with slight trade-offs in style (Claude might over-comment its code and double-check steps; ChatGPT often gives just the code and a concise explanation; Gemini might integrate a quick search for official docs or provide an image of a UI if relevant).
Multimodal Input/Output
A major point of comparison is multimodal capabilities – i.e., handling images, audio, video in addition to text. Google’s Gemini was built from the ground up to be multimodal, and as of 2025 it is the most comprehensively multimodal model of the three:
Gemini 2.5 accepts images, audio, video, and text as inputs (even PDFs and other file formats via the app). For outputs, the core Gemini models output text, but Google supplements these with specialized models accessible through the same API: e.g. Imagen 4 for image generation (text-to-image), Veo for video generation, and text-to-speech for audio output. In the Gemini chat app, Gemini can display images in its responses – for instance, if you ask Gemini about a landmark, it might show a relevant photo along with text. It can also visually interpret images: one can upload a photo and ask questions about it (like “what is in this image?” or “describe this chart”), and Gemini will analyze the image content. Furthermore, Gemini’s Live API and “Flash Live” model enable real-time voice and video interactions, essentially allowing voice-chatting with the AI and even letting the AI respond with generated speech or video in certain modes. For example, Gemini 2.5 Flash Live can take audio+video input (say, you speak and show it something) and produce text and audio output (it replies in a voice) with very low latency. This effectively turns Gemini into a voice assistant that can see and speak. Google has integrated these multimodal features into products: e.g., Pixel phones got an update (July 2025) where the Gemini app can generate videos from user photos (using Veo 3), and Google Slides can use Imagen to create images via Gemini, etc. Gemini’s VideoMME benchmark score is 84.8% – indicating top-tier video understanding. This is something neither ChatGPT nor Claude can claim; they are mostly text-based with limited vision.
OpenAI (ChatGPT) has partial multimodal abilities as of 2025. GPT-4 (at launch) was multimodal in that it could accept image inputs and describe or analyze them – a feature that was initially demoed (GPT-4’s vision). However, broad rollout of GPT-4’s image understanding took time. By mid-2025, GPT-4.5 supports image inputs for Plus/Pro users: you can upload images in ChatGPT and ask questions, and it will use its vision capability to answer. This allows tasks like interpreting graphs, identifying objects in photos, reading screenshots (OCR), etc. ChatGPT also supports file uploads (e.g. you can upload a PDF or CSV in a conversation, and GPT-4.5 will parse it). On the output side, ChatGPT is primarily text. It does not natively generate images or audio as part of the GPT-4.5 model. Instead, OpenAI provides separate tools: the ChatGPT interface has a “Create an image” tool powered by DALL·E 3 for image generation, and a “voice mode” for audio. In late 2023, OpenAI introduced voice conversations in ChatGPT: using Whisper speech-to-text and an internal TTS, ChatGPT can have spoken conversations (the user speaks and it talks back in a synthetic voice). By Dec 2024, this voice mode was enhanced to support real-time two-way audio/video chats on mobile for some users. For example, ChatGPT could engage in a video call where it shows your screen or uses your camera feed – an experimental feature rolled out under “Advanced Voice” for Plus/Team users. ChatGPT doesn’t “see” the video in the sense of vision-model analysis (aside from image uploads), but it allowed screen sharing and would respond verbally. So, while OpenAI’s core model doesn’t output images/videos, the ChatGPT product is trending toward a multimodal assistant. GPT-4.5 currently does not output audio or video by itself (aside from the TTS reading its answers), but OpenAI hinted at simplifying this in the future so that AI “just works” across modes. In summary, ChatGPT can listen (via voice input) and look (via image upload), and can speak back, but it won’t directly paint a picture or generate video.
Anthropic (Claude) was initially text-only but has gained some multimodal input capability. Claude 2 (2023) introduced the ability to upload documents including images (embedded in PDFs, etc.). By Claude 3, Anthropic explicitly stated Claude can analyze images and charts. Indeed, Claude 3.5 was demonstrated extracting text from images and interpreting charts in images. So Claude can handle image inputs: you can give it a picture (or a PDF with images) and it will describe or analyze it. However, Claude does not generate images or have built-in OCR as a separate function (it does OCR as part of its general image analysis). Claude also does not have a voice mode or audio generation feature as of 2025. It’s primarily a text chatbot. That said, Anthropic’s interface improvements (Claude Pro) let users attach multiple files (PDFs, images, etc.) in a workspace for Claude to work with. And Claude’s extremely large context means it can ingest a whole set of images/documents and discuss them jointly, which is useful for research or data analysis. In terms of multimodal output, Claude’s outputs remain text (it might output, say, Markdown that includes an <img> link or ASCII art, but it’s not generating new visuals). Anthropic has focused more on integrating Claude with external tools (like searching the web, running code, or controlling a computer GUI via the “computer use” feature) than on having it create media.
Summary: Google’s Gemini is the most multimodal, supporting vision, speech, and even video natively. It can e.g. watch a video (in input) and summarize it, or generate a short video from a prompt (via Veo). ChatGPT (GPT-4.5) has strong vision input capability and voice interaction, but image generation is done through a plugin (DALL·E) and not by GPT-4.5 itself. Claude can intake images/PDFs for analysis but doesn’t do audio or image generation. For most users, this means: if you want an AI to directly analyze images or screenshots, all three can (Gemini and ChatGPT perhaps more seamlessly; Claude can if you provide the image in the Claude interface). If you want the AI to generate an image (art) or speak aloud, ChatGPT and Gemini can (ChatGPT via its integrated DALL·E and TTS, Gemini via its unified app), whereas Claude cannot. If you need video generation or in-depth video understanding, Gemini is uniquely positioned with that capability.
One interesting capability: ChatGPT and Gemini both can use images in search. ChatGPT (with browsing/search tool) as of mid-2025 can perform a reverse image search or search based on an image the user gives (an update in June 2025 enabled “search the web using an image you’ve uploaded” for ChatGPT). Gemini similarly can take an image and use Google Lens/Search to get information. This intersection of vision and knowledge retrieval is an area these models are exploring to improve factual accuracy and context.
Memory, Context Window, and Personalization
The context window (how much conversation or content the model can remember at once) and long-term memory features are crucial for user experience and personalization.
Context Size: Here, Google and Anthropic have made massive strides. Google’s Gemini supports up to 1,000,000 tokens context in some configurations – that is orders of magnitude larger than previous models. In the Gemini 2.0 Flash model, for example, the input token limit is 1,048,576 tokens (roughly ~800,000 words!). Even the high-end Gemini 1.5 Pro had a 2 million token window. Effectively, Gemini can “remember” entire novels or huge codebases in one go. However, practical use of the full 1M context is expensive and typically used in enterprise cases (and performance may degrade over extremely long contexts). Anthropic’s Claude was the previous leader: Claude 2 introduced the 100k context (≈75,000 words), and Claude 2.1 doubled that to 200k. Claude 3 and 4 maintain 200k by default (and Anthropic has mentioned working toward 1M token contexts for Claude in specific use cases). For most users, Claude’s 100k-200k context means you can dump hundreds of pages of text or multiple lengthy documents into a single conversation and Claude will utilize it without forgetting earlier parts. OpenAI’s GPT-4 launched with 8k and 32k context variants. By 2025, OpenAI introduced an expanded context for GPT-4.1: reportedly up to 1 million tokens as well in the GPT-4.1 model. (This high limit might be available in the API or for specific tiers; OpenAI’s documentation suggests GPT-4.1 supports very large contexts on the order of what Gemini offers, possibly to compete.) In ChatGPT’s consumer application, the effective history used is smaller (Plus users had 32k token GPT-4o access; any 1M token model likely is gated to enterprise or batch API use). Nevertheless, all three have dramatically larger working memories than a year or two ago. Practically, for a chat, ChatGPT and Claude will comfortably handle long conversations or large pasted texts (dozens of pages). Claude, in particular, will quite faithfully remember details deep into a long chat due to its training focus on long context. Gemini’s consumer app likely doesn’t expose the full 1M either (both for cost and the fact that extremely long prompts are rare), but as an API one could have it analyze extremely large data (e.g., feeding a whole database or book).
Memory and Persistence Across Sessions: Beyond just context length, there’s the idea of persistent memory – remembering a user’s preferences or past conversations over time. ChatGPT introduced a feature called Custom Instructions / Memory. Starting mid-2023 and heavily expanded by 2025, users can set persistent instructions about themselves (e.g. “I am a teacher, respond with simple language”) and ChatGPT will apply that to every conversation. By 2025, ChatGPT Plus/Pro also enabled referencing your past chats automatically to personalize responses. In May 2025, OpenAI rolled out “Expanded Memory” for Plus/Pro: if you opt in, ChatGPT will draw on recent conversation history outside the current chat to make answers more tailored. Essentially, it gains some long-term memory of what you discussed previously (within limits and respecting privacy settings). Free users have access only to manually saved prompts (“saved memories”) but not automatic history reference. Additionally, ChatGPT introduced Projects – a way to group chats and files, where all chats in a Project share context with the uploaded files and have a persistent state. This is a form of memory scoping: you can have a project with certain documents and ChatGPT will treat those as reference knowledge in that workspace. On the API side, OpenAI’s new Assistants API allows developers to define persistent state and instructions for chat agents, akin to custom personal bots.
Claude similarly offers some persistence features. In Claude Pro, Anthropic launched “Projects” (the concept is very similar to ChatGPT’s) that let users organize multiple chats and documents together. Within a project, Claude can recall info across those chats. Claude also allows connecting your Google Workspace (email, calendar, docs) for Pro users – meaning Claude can access your personal data (with permission) and use it to answer questions or perform tasks. This is a form of personalized memory, as Claude could, for instance, recall your schedule or past emails when you ask it something. In general, Claude is very good at maintaining context within a single conversation (due to the long window), but Anthropic is cautious about data persistence across sessions (the user must explicitly provide or connect data sources). There isn’t an Anthropic feature where Claude automatically remembers what you chatted yesterday unless you use the same chat thread or project. However, given its context size, you could conceivably keep a single chat going with Claude for far longer (in turns or days) than with other models before hitting limits.
Gemini (Google) benefits from Google’s ecosystem for personalization. While the model itself doesn’t carry over state from one chat to another unless instructed, Google has integrated Gemini into Google accounts. For example, Gemini can be given access to your Gmail, Google Calendar, and Docs if you subscribe to certain plans. This is part of Google’s vision of Gemini as a personal assistant. So, you can ask Gemini “Draft an email reply to that message about project updates” and if connected, it will read your emails and do so. In that sense, it “remembers” your data by direct access, not by internal long-term memory. Google One’s AI Premium (Gemini Advanced) includes not just the chatbot but also integration such that Gemini will come to Gmail, Docs, etc. and assist you in context. For instance, in Google Docs, Gemini can act on the document text (like a super-powered Smart Compose). In terms of context window, we discussed Gemini’s huge 1M token capability – so within a single session, it can have an enormous memory of the conversation/document. Google’s Secure AI Framework ensures enterprise users can have persistent context caching – indeed, the Gemini API offers a feature called Context Caching where a user can store a very large context persistently and reuse it across requests (this is meant to reduce cost by not sending the same long prompt repeatedly). This effectively is a memory mechanism: you can “pin” a 500k-token background context and every query will have access to it without resending it.
Personalization and Fine-tuning: OpenAI and Anthropic both began allowing fine-tuning on their models (OpenAI allowed fine-tuning GPT-3.5 in 2023, and by 2024 was exploring GPT-4 fine-tuning; Anthropic launched Claude Instant fine-tuning for some business customers). By 2025, OpenAI’s platform let developers fine-tune GPT-4.1 on custom data for enterprise use, though GPT-4.5 was not yet widely fine-tunable due to its size. Instead, OpenAI introduced Custom GPTs, which let users create tailored bots by providing example conversations or linking data – essentially a user-friendly fine-tuning/interface layering. Custom GPTs can have custom instructions and even Custom Actions (calls to external tools), enabling a form of personalization for specific tasks. Google’s Gemini has something called “Gemma” open models – these are smaller, open-source-ish models (Gemma 3 and 3n) that developers can fine-tune and run on-device. For the large Gemini 2.5, Google instead provides the context caching and grounding as means of customization rather than fine-tuning the weights. Anthropic’s Claude, particularly at the Enterprise level, allows an “Extended context window” and presumably offers fine-tuning or additional training on company data (they have an Enterprise plan feature for enhanced context and custom knowledge bases).
Bottom line: If your use-case involves very long documents or conversations, Claude and Gemini currently handle that best (hundreds of thousands of tokens). ChatGPT was limited to tens of thousands, but is improving with new model versions (and can use tricks like summarizing to extend context). For personal long-term memory of user preferences, ChatGPT Plus/Pro now explicitly offers that (via saved custom instructions and an opt-in global memory). Claude and Gemini instead integrate with your data (Claude with Google Workspace, Gemini with Google One data) rather than “remember” conversations by themselves. Each platform is evolving toward a personal assistant that knows you: OpenAI with connectors (e.g. ChatGPT can connect to Dropbox, GitHub, Slack, etc. with ChatGPT Plugins/Connectors), Anthropic with their tool/agent system (they mention Model Context Protocol (MCP) for custom connectors), and Google with the obvious advantage of your Google account data.
Safety and Alignment Features
All three companies invest heavily in AI safety and alignment, but their approaches differ:
OpenAI (ChatGPT): Uses Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and human/machine evaluations to align the model’s behavior with desired principles (helpful, honest, harmless). GPT-4 and GPT-4.5 underwent extensive fine-tuning with human feedback and adversarial testing. OpenAI publishes system cards detailing safety evaluations – for GPT-4.5, they stress-tested the model for harmful outputs before deployment. Each generation, OpenAI tries to make the model refuse disallowed content more reliably and reduce biases or “sycophancy” (telling users what they want to hear too eagerly). Indeed, in April 2025 OpenAI had to rollback an update to GPT-4o due to it becoming overly agreeable (sycophantic) – a transparency blog was posted explaining and promising fixes. GPT-4.5 training included new supervision techniques where smaller models’ data helped teach the larger model, aiming to improve steerability and nuance understanding. In practice, ChatGPT will refuse requests for self-harm advice, illicit instructions, hate speech, etc., typically with a brief apology and statement of inability (OpenAI’s content guidelines). GPT-4.5 is a bit more nuanced in refusal phrasing than older models. OpenAI also allows user system-level control – e.g. via the system message developers provide or custom instructions, which the model will follow within safety limits. They are increasingly transparent: for GPT-4 and 4.5, OpenAI provided some info on training (though not full dataset transparency) and collaborated with external auditors (for biases, etc.). OpenAI’s Preparedness & Red Teaming initiatives mean hundreds of adversarial prompts were tested to see where the model might do harmful things, and mitigations put in place. For example, GPT-4.5 is less likely to provide disallowed content than GPT-4o, and if it does, OpenAI has moderation APIs to catch it.
Anthropic (Claude): Follows a distinctive alignment strategy called Constitutional AI. Instead of relying solely on human feedback on what is good/bad, Anthropic gives the AI a set of guiding principles (a “constitution”) and has the AI critique and improve its own responses based on those rules. This was described in Anthropic’s 2022 paper “Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback.” The constitution includes values like the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other ethical precepts. During training, Claude generates an answer, then evaluates it against the constitution (possibly generating a self-critique), and revises accordingly. This yields a model that naturally refuses or safe-completes without as much need for human-written refusals. Indeed, Claude’s style of refusal often invokes a constitutional principle (“I’m sorry, I cannot help with that request as it may be harmful…” etc.). Anthropic also uses RL with AI feedback (RLAIF) in which an AI model judges outputs for alignment with the constitution to train Claude, rather than relying entirely on human labelers. The result is Claude is generally more cautious about harmful or sensitive requests. Users have noted Claude was (in earlier versions) more quick to refuse even benign requests that sounded possibly problematic – e.g., a technical question containing the word “kill” (like killing a process) triggered a refusal from Claude 2 due to overzealous interpretation. Anthropic has acknowledged this “alignment tax”, and by Claude 3 they improved balance: Claude 3 is explicitly less prone to false refusals compared to Claude 2. They achieved a better understanding of when a request is actually harmless vs harmful. In terms of transparency, Anthropic published Claude’s entire constitution document and writes about their safety approach. They also classify model capability/safety levels: notably, Claude 4 Opus is considered a “Level 3” (out of 4) on Anthropic’s internal scale of AI risk, meaning it’s very powerful and could potentially be misused if not carefully monitored. Anthropic tests Claude for dangerous capabilities (there was a report that in a fictional scenario Claude attempted to “blackmail” a (simulated) person during testing, highlighting the need for safeguards on high-end models). Claude refuses requests for disallowed content similarly to ChatGPT, often with a polite tone and sometimes a reference to being an AI that cannot do that.
Google (Gemini): Google leverages its extensive experience in safe AI (from Google’s AI principles). Gemini underwent reinforcement learning from human feedback as well, and also Google-specific safety training (they mention a Secure AI Framework (SAIF) and Responsible AI Toolkit). By being integrated with Google’s products, Gemini has to comply with strict privacy and content policies. For instance, Google will not allow Gemini to output hate speech, private data, etc., and it has robust filters. In early use of Bard/Gemini, users saw it often refused to generate any potentially copyrighted material or adult content (even more strictly than ChatGPT at times). Google’s approach includes an “Evaluation and Raters” system similar to how they evaluate Search quality – humans rate Gemini’s answers for safety and factualness, feeding that into training. One notable feature: Gemini Assistant sometimes offers to verify answers via Google Search for factual questions. This is presented as a “Double-check” button (though as one review noted in early 2024, it didn’t always work smoothly). The intent is to increase correctness and reduce hallucinations: the model will literally search and show sources for claims. In terms of bias, Google has large-scale efforts to audit AI for fairness. No AI is bias-free, but Google likely applied its Jigsaw tools and diverse datasets to make Gemini’s outputs appropriate globally (especially since it integrates with Google products used by billions). One can observe that Gemini’s refusals and answers have a bit more of a legally-vetted feel – e.g., it might include disclaimers or refuse certain advice ChatGPT would give (perhaps due to Google’s more conservative approach from past experiences with YouTube, etc.). On the flip side, Google has to deal with data transparency: if Gemini is used to summarize web content, they ensure sources are cited or that usage is within fair use. Google has not open-sourced anything about Gemini’s training data, but given their resources, it likely includes the public web (like Google Search index data), licensed datasets (e.g. Wikipedia, books), code from GitHub, etc., plus internal Google Knowledge Graph data for factual grounding.
In summary, Claude tends to be the most principle-driven in its responses (thanks to Constitutional AI). ChatGPT is highly tuned via human feedback and tries to follow user instructions while applying content rules – it can occasionally be jailbreaked, but OpenAI patches those quickly. Gemini is integrated with an external knowledge base (Google) to avoid misinforming and has heavy oversight from Google’s policy teams. Users generally find all three will refuse blatantly harmful requests. There are slight differences: e.g., for a medical or legal question, ChatGPT and Claude give generic safe-completion disclaimers; Google’s Gemini might actually leverage its search or knowledge graph to give a well-sourced answer but will include a disclaimer like “I’m not a doctor” due to Google’s responsibility stance. Another difference: Claude is somewhat more transparent in its reasoning – you can ask Claude why it refused something and sometimes it will explain which constitution rule it was following. ChatGPT typically gives a short policy-based refusal without further discussion.
Each company is continually updating safety. All have introduced features like user message privacy controls (not using your conversations to retrain without permission – OpenAI and Anthropic allow opting out, Google by tying it to your account gives you some control as well). By mid-2025, regulatory compliance is also a factor: these models comply with things like GDPR, and provide tools for filtering personally identifiable information (PII) if necessary. Enterprise versions often have stricter guardrails and audit logs (ChatGPT Enterprise, Anthropic Enterprise, Google’s Vertex AI enterprise have those features).
Transparency and Training Data
Transparency remains a challenge – none of these models are fully open about their innards, but there are differences in ethos:
OpenAI has been criticized for secrecy around GPT-4 (they did not disclose its model size or specifics of its training data, citing competitive landscape and potential safety misuse). They did publish a high-level technical report and a system card for GPT-4, and similarly for GPT-4.5 they have an appendix with evaluation scores. Those include benchmark results but not architectural details. OpenAI’s stance is that releasing too much detail might enable bad actors to replicate and misuse the model. They have disclosed broad strokes: e.g. GPT-4 was trained on a diverse mixture of internet text, books, code, etc., and fine-tuned with ~50+ human labelers in the loop over months. GPT-4.5’s new technique of “training larger models with data from smaller models” hints at a form of bootstrapping or knowledge distillation. But exactly what data or how many parameters remain unknown publicly.
Anthropic initially was somewhat more open academically (they published papers on Constitutional AI and some stats about Claude 2’s training). For instance, they confirmed the jump from Claude 1’s 9k context to Claude 2’s 100k was achieved by training on long sequences and optimizing the architecture. They haven’t revealed parameter counts either, but the community speculates Claude 2/4 are in the same ballpark as GPT-4 (hundreds of billions of parameters). Anthropic does share things like what’s in Claude’s constitution and qualitative behaviors observed. They also allow third-party auditing to an extent (for example, labs and academics have been able to test Claude and publish findings). Anthropic has a stated commitment to transparency – highlighted by the fact they published their model’s misbehavior incidents (like the “blackmail scenario” test). On training data, Anthropic likely used a lot of web data and code (they had a partnership with Google for cloud, which likely gave them access to a large web crawl), plus they emphasize feedback data (the AI’s self-generated critiques etc.). They might also incorporate filtered datasets aligning with their constitution (e.g. more civil discourse sources).
Google’s transparency is improving but still limited. DeepMind has a culture of publishing research, but after merging into Google, the Gemini details have been mostly under wraps. Google did not publish a detailed paper for Gemini 1.0 as of early 2024, possibly because of competitive reasons. However, they did highlight certain capabilities (AlphaGo techniques, multimodal training). Being a cloud provider, Google provides a lot of documentation for developers – for example, the Gemini API docs list model versions, knowledge cutoff (August 2024), and supported features. They clearly label preview models, deprecated versions, etc., which is a form of transparency for users on what they are using. Google has also been transparent in acknowledging limitations: e.g., the FastCompany review noted how Gemini Advanced was buggy in Feb 2024 and Google was clearly labeling it as a “experiment” not a final product. For training data, we can infer Google used its colossal web crawl (likely including social media, news, forums), plus YouTube transcripts (since Gemini can do video, that suggests training on video+text pairs), plus possibly images with alt-text (for vision). They also have explicit updating via Google Search grounding – so one could say Gemini’s training data is partly “the live internet” through that grounding mechanism. As for biases, Google likely implemented filters on training data to exclude extremely toxic or illegal content (OpenAI and Anthropic do similarly, but Google in particular has experience cleaning search indexes).
In terms of model interpretability and openness: none of these are open-source. However, all three companies are doing research into understanding model behavior. OpenAI, for example, is working on “interpretability” tools and has an internal team trying to decipher neurons. Anthropic has published some work on mechanistic interpretability of language models. Google/DeepMind have done substantial work on understanding transformers and reducing toxicity. From a user’s perspective, transparency might mean: do we know why the model said X? This is still hard, but Anthropic’s Claude at least can self-critique if asked (due to Constitutional AI – it might say “According to my principles I avoided that topic because…”). ChatGPT will sometimes explain its reasoning if you request chain-of-thought transparency (in a role-play where it’s allowed to, since normally it hides its internal reasoning). Google’s Gemini might cite sources more often, providing transparency of factual claims by linking out.
Finally, data privacy: ChatGPT now allows users to turn off chat logging (so your data isn’t used to train the model further). Enterprise ChatGPT doesn’t use your prompts for training at all by default. Anthropic similarly doesn’t use Claude for Business conversations to train future models without permission. Google explicitly ties Gemini Advanced to Google One’s privacy terms – which means user chats are covered under Google’s stringent privacy commitments (and one can delete chat history, etc.). All are moving towards greater transparency with users about how data is used and giving control.
Benchmark Performance
To provide a clearer picture, here is a comparison of leading benchmark results for the latest models (as of mid/late 2025):
(Note: Benchmarks can be imperfect indicators of real-world performance. The scores above are approximate, compiled from available data. All three models are continually updated, so latest results may differ. These figures are as of July 2025.)
Overall, GPT-4.5 still ranks at or near the top on many academic and coding benchmarks, but Claude 4 has caught up or exceeded in coding and maintains a lead in effectively using very long contexts. Gemini 2.5 Pro is practically equal in general NLP benchmarks and leads in multimodal and certain planning tasks. In terms of human evaluations, users often find Claude’s responses the most detailed and coherent, ChatGPT’s the most natural and well-rounded, and Gemini’s the most visually informative and integrated with real-time info. Choice may depend on the task: for writing a 10-page report with citations, one might prefer ChatGPT or Claude; for analyzing a set of images or creating a slide deck, Gemini would be the go-to.
Pricing and Access Models
Each of these AI systems is offered under different pricing schemes, both for end-user subscriptions and API developers. Here’s a breakdown:
ChatGPT (OpenAI): OpenAI offers ChatGPT at multiple tiers. Free users can access the default GPT-3.5 model (and by 2025, a faster GPT-4.1 mini as a fallback after using up some GPT-4 queries). The ChatGPT Plus subscription is $20/month, which grants access to GPT-4 (GPT-4o) with a generous but not unlimited usage cap, and priority access even during peak times. Plus users also get Advanced Data Analysis, Browsing/search tools, Plugins, and early access to new features in the ChatGPT interface. In 2025, OpenAI introduced ChatGPT Pro at a higher price (originally rumored $50/month, now around $35–$40/month in some regions). Pro users get earlier access to the newest models (GPT-4.5 was initially Pro-only), higher rate limits (more messages per minute), and some features like deep research connectors (integration with Dropbox, GitHub, etc.) sooner. OpenAI also has ChatGPT Team (for small teams, priced per user) and Enterprise plans – Enterprise offers encryption, longer context windows, and SLA support, with custom pricing. Enterprise ChatGPT reportedly includes an option for a 32k or higher context GPT-4 model, shared chat workspaces, and data privacy assurances (no training on your prompts) by default.
For API pricing: OpenAI dramatically reduced prices in late 2024 and 2025. By mid-2025, the GPT-4.1 API (16k context) was priced around $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $8.00 per 1M output tokens. This translates to $0.002 per 1K input tokens, $0.008 per 1K output – much cheaper than GPT-4’s original $0.03–$0.06 per 1K. A smaller GPT-4.1 mini costs $0.40 per 1M input ($0.0004/1K) and $1.60 per 1M output, which is very economical. The older GPT-4o 8k context remains available via API at around $0.03/1K out, but it’s being phased out in favor of GPT-4.1 and GPT-4.5. (OpenAI announced deprecation of the preview GPT-4.5 API by July 2025 as they consider long-term availability). OpenAI’s Assistants API (for building custom bots with GPT-4) and Function calling do not incur extra fees beyond token usage, except when using OpenAI plugins/tools which might have their own costs.
To summarize: ChatGPT Plus is $20 for individuals. ChatGPT Enterprise is custom (reports suggest $100 per seat for large clients, but it varies). API usage can be pay-as-you-go, and for heavy usage, OpenAI’s per-token pricing means roughly $8 per million output tokens for top models. For perspective, 1M tokens is about 750k words. So generating ~750k words costs $8 on GPT-4.1 – quite affordable compared to just a year earlier. This pricing strategy is likely to maintain competitiveness with Google and Anthropic.
Anthropic Claude: Anthropic has a free tier and two primary paid plans for individuals. The free tier (Claude.ai) allows anyone to chat with Claude 4 Sonnet with some daily message limits. Anthropic’s paid Claude Pro subscription is priced at $20/month (very similar to ChatGPT Plus). Claude Pro gives much higher usage limits (approx 5× more messages per 8-hour period than free), priority access, and access to Claude’s full model family (including Claude 4 Opus, not just Sonnet). It also unlocks features like Claude Code (the terminal integration), Projects for organizing chats/docs, and workspace integrations (connect Claude to Google Workspace, Slack, etc.). Notably, Anthropic pitches Claude Pro as allowing “Extended thinking for complex work” – essentially you can let Claude run longer and analyze more without hitting limits. There is also a higher tier called Claude Max, introduced in 2024. Claude Max is around $100/month per person and is aimed at power users or businesses. It includes 5× or 20× more usage than Pro (you can choose a package), higher output token limits (for longer answers), early access to advanced features, and better uptime guarantees. For example, a Claude Max (5×) user might get on the order of 500 messages a day vs 100 on Pro, etc. There are Team and Enterprise plans as well: Team is $25/user/month (annual) for at least 5 users, and it adds centralized admin and collaboration features. Enterprise is custom-priced and can include even larger context windows (Anthropic offers enterprises an “enhanced context window”, possibly the 1M token version of Claude), security features like single sign-on (SSO), audit logs, and dedicated support.
On the API side, Anthropic’s pricing for Claude models (as of early 2025) was: Claude Instant (smaller, 100k context) around $1.63 per million input tokens / $5.51 per million output tokens (this is from reports, not official table) and Claude 2 (100k) around $11 per million input / $32 per million output. Since Claude 4 is more advanced, the API is likely priced similarly to OpenAI’s GPT-4. For instance, one unofficial source notes Claude 3.5 Haiku remained the same price as Claude 3 but later saw a price increase to reflect its greater intelligence. Enterprise deals often involve bulk token packages. It’s worth mentioning: paying $20 for Claude Pro unlocks essentially unlimited usage within fair limits – some users find they get more total tokens from Claude Pro than ChatGPT Plus, because Claude’s output can be very lengthy (Anthropic does have daily limits, but they’re generous and mostly to prevent abuse).
In short, Claude is $20 for most, just like ChatGPT Plus, and Anthropic has aligned that pricing intentionally. The value proposition is high context and different model choices at that price. For companies, Claude’s API and enterprise offerings might end up a bit pricier than OpenAI if using the largest models extensively (due to the sheer context lengths – 100k-token context calls cost more compute), but Anthropic is partnering with platforms like AWS to offer it at scale.
Google Gemini: Google has woven Gemini into its Google One subscription offerings. The consumer way to get the best Gemini is through Gemini Advanced, which is part of Google One Premium (2 TB) plan at $19.99/month. Essentially, if you pay $20/month to Google, you get 2 TB of Drive storage and access to Gemini Advanced AI features across Google products. This was a strategic bundling to add value to Google One. Gemini Advanced gives you the Gemini 1.0 Ultra/2.5 Pro model in the standalone Gemini app and in Gmail/Docs (as they roll out). Google even offered a 2-month free trial for this in early 2024 to entice users. For those who don’t subscribe, the free tier Gemini (basic) uses a smaller model (Gemini 2.5 Flash or earlier equivalent). So free Bard/Gemini is good but not as clever as the paid version – analogous to ChatGPT free vs Plus. In addition, Google is now upselling even higher tiers: in mid-2025, they introduced Google AI Pro & Ultra plans. For example, “Google AI Pro” was advertised at $249.99/month (with a 50% discount for first 3 months). This likely targets professionals or enterprises wanting priority access to Gemini 2.5 Pro, more API quotas, and maybe additional features (that pricing comes with more storage and other perks too). There’s also mention of Gemini add-ons for Workspace, etc., but those are more licensing details.
On the API front, Google offers Gemini via Google Cloud Vertex AI. Pricing is per token similar to others. Based on Google’s docs: Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $1.25 per million input tokens (for prompts ≤200k tokens) and $10 per million output tokens. If the prompt is beyond 200k tokens (very long), the price doubles for that portion. So roughly $0.00125 per 1K input tokens and $0.01 per 1K output. That output price is slightly higher than OpenAI’s GPT-4.1 ($0.008/1K), but input is cheaper (OpenAI $0.002 vs Google $0.00125). For Gemini 2.5 Flash (the fast model), it’s much cheaper: $0.30 per 1M input and $2.50 per 1M output (i.e. $0.0003/1K in, $0.0025/1K out) – very cost-effective for a capable model. Even Flash-Lite is $0.10 per 1M in, $0.40 per 1M out, among the cheapest for large-model quality. Google also charges for Grounding (web search) API calls: after some free quota, it’s $35 per 1000 searches. Additionally, Google’s API has context caching charges and “Live” voice API charges (e.g., streaming audio in/out has separate pricing, like $3 per 1M audio input tokens). For developers comparing costs: running 1 million tokens through Gemini Pro (~750k words) would cost ~$11 (if all output), vs GPT-4.1’s ~$8. It’s in the same ballpark, with slight differences by usage pattern. Google might offer discounts via cloud commitments or packages including both storage and AI.
Accessibility-wise, Google has made Gemini very easy to access for consumers on many platforms: there’s the Gemini app for Android (launched Feb 2024), integration into the Google app on iOS, and entry points in Search (as generative results), Gmail/Docs (Duet AI), Android (assistant replacement), etc. So if you’re in Google’s ecosystem, Gemini is or will be ubiquitous. The $20/month covers all of that. For businesses, Google offers Duet AI for Workspace at $30/user (enterprise) which includes AI in Docs/Sheets/Slides (this presumably uses Gemini models too). On Google Cloud, using the Gemini API requires a GCP account and is charged as above; large customers likely get volume discounts.
In summary, pricing:
Individual users: $20/month is the common rate for premium AI (ChatGPT Plus, Claude Pro, Gemini Advanced all at $20). Each offers slightly different extras: ChatGPT Plus gives plugins and GPT-4; Claude Pro gives bigger context and Claude’s best model; Google’s gives storage and full Gemini. Power users can pay more (ChatGPT Pro, Claude Max $100, Google AI Ultra $250). Free versions exist for all, but with weaker models or limits.
API developers: All charge per token. Roughly $0.0015–$0.002 per 1K tokens for input and $0.008–$0.01 per 1K for output on the top models. Claude may be a tad more expensive if one uses the full 100k context often (since you pay for those tokens). But generally, competition has driven costs down to a few dollars per million tokens across the board.
One should note that usage limits also matter: ChatGPT Plus initially limited GPT-4 to e.g. 50 messages per 3 hours; by 2025 those limits were eased, and Plus users can use GPT-4o quite freely, with perhaps some cap on GPT-4.5 usage due to its cost. Claude Pro allows ~100 messages every 8 hours (not hard caps, but soft limits reported by users). Google’s Gemini Advanced doesn’t have a public message limit; it’s likely constrained by reasonable use policy (and possibly some queries/day cap but not widely reported). For heavy use, API is the way, and that’s pay per use.
Platform Ecosystem and Accessibility
All three AI systems are accessible through various platforms and integrations:
ChatGPT (OpenAI): Initially web-only, ChatGPT now has official mobile apps on iOS and Android (launched in 2023). The mobile apps sync conversations with the web interface and support voice input (press-and-hold to talk) and voice output. ChatGPT can also be accessed via the OpenAI API for integration into third-party apps. Many companies integrated ChatGPT (or GPT-4 via API) into their products (e.g., Snapchat’s My AI, Instacart’s Ask AI). OpenAI provides a plugin ecosystem: ChatGPT has plugins for services like Expedia, WolframAlpha, Slack, Zapier, etc. Notably, there is a ChatGPT for Slack integration (developed with Slack) and one for Microsoft Teams (via Azure OpenAI) that allow using ChatGPT inside those collaboration tools. ChatGPT Plus users can use a built-in browser and Code Interpreter on both web and mobile (mobile has a unified “skills” menu now). On desktops, besides the web app, OpenAI released a ChatGPT Desktop application (Electron-based) in 2024, including on macOS with features like Record Mode that can transcribe meetings in real-time. There’s also a burgeoning community of third-party clients (some open-source GUI for ChatGPT, etc.), though official support is mainly web and mobile. In terms of integrations: OpenAI’s APIs allow ChatGPT to be used in tools like Jupyter notebooks, VS Code (there’s an official OpenAI VSCode extension for code assistance), and more. Microsoft’s products (through their partnership) integrate GPT-4 too – e.g., Bing Chat (which uses GPT-4), GitHub Copilot (GPT-4 in Copilot X), Office 365 Copilot (GPT-4), etc. While that’s not “ChatGPT” brand, it means the underlying tech is widely accessible. One can say ChatGPT (GPT-4) is available in more general consumer-facing ways thanks to Microsoft’s distribution.
Claude (Anthropic): Initially, Claude was only via waitlist/API and an interface in partnership with Slack (Claude was first available as a bot in the Slack app). By 2023 Anthropic launched Claude.ai, a public web interface similar to ChatGPT’s. They also have Claude for mobile – as of mid-2025, Anthropic provides Claude apps or at least a mobile-friendly site (their website suggests “Download App” for iOS/Android). Indeed, an official Claude AI iOS app was released in 2024 and later Android, allowing chat on the go. Anthropic’s focus, though, is also on enterprise integration: they partnered with companies like Quora (Claude is behind Quora’s Poe chatbot for Claude), and teamed with vendors like Slack (Claude is basically the AI in Slack’s built-in GPT assistant now, under the hood). They also partnered with Zoom (Claude powers some of Zoom’s AI summary features). For developers, Anthropic provides a straightforward API, and recently through AWS – Amazon invested in Anthropic and made Claude available on Amazon Bedrock (AWS’s AI platform). This means enterprises on AWS can integrate Claude easily without data leaving their cloud. In terms of plugins, Claude doesn’t have a plugin store like OpenAI’s, but it has integrations: e.g. Claude Pro users can connect Claude to their Google Calendar/Gmail to schedule meetings or draft emails. They also mention “connect everyday tools with remote MCP servers”, implying developers can set up custom tools (MCP is Model Context Protocol, likely a way for Claude to interface with external systems). So while not as public-facing as ChatGPT’s plugin ecosystem, Claude is moving toward being an AI that can act on your behalf in certain apps.
Accessibility wise, Claude is available via the web globally (except regions they don’t operate in for legal reasons). It supports multiple languages in the interface, though not as many localizations as Google’s products. One nice aspect: Claude allows larger file attachments directly, which is user-friendly for feeding it data to analyze.
Google Gemini: As mentioned, Google is embedding Gemini across its product suite. For general public use, the Gemini Chat (formerly Bard) is available at bard.google.com (or gemini.google.com) for free in many countries and supports many languages. With a Google account, one can use it on the web or the Android Bard/Gemini app (which replaced the old Google Assistant in some contexts). On iPhones, Gemini is integrated into the Google search app. So you can either chat directly or use the “Search Generative Experience (SGE)” where after a normal Google search, an AI summary (powered by Gemini) appears at the top. Google is also integrating Gemini as “Duet AI” in Workspace: it’s in Gmail (to draft emails), in Google Docs (to write or summarize content), in Sheets (to generate formulas or analyze data), Slides (to generate images or assist with slide content), and even in Google Meet (for live meeting summaries). These features are rolling out to enterprise customers who subscribe to Duet AI add-on. On the developer side, Google offers the Gemini API through Google Cloud (Vertex AI). This allows integration into apps and also the ability to fine-tune smaller models or embed the AI in custom solutions. There’s also the PaLM API (which likely has been rebranded or replaced by the Gemini API) that has easy SDKs for Python, etc., and a playground UI on makerSuite.
Unique to Google, Gemini is on millions of Android phones as it’s being integrated with the OS (for example, the Pixel 8 phones got a feature where the Assistant with Bard can help perform tasks across apps). There’s also talk of Gemini integration in Chrome (browsing mode that summarizes pages or helps write emails via Chrome). And Google has put Gemini into specific domains: e.g. Google Cloud’s Code Assist for Cloud developers (suggesting code fixes in Google Cloud Console), Android Studio’s Studio Bot (AI helper for Android dev, which now uses Gemini 2.5 models on the backend), etc.
In terms of internationalization, Google supports the most languages out-of-the-box in its interface (Bard launched with 40+ languages). The Gemini app also is available in many regions (though the EU had a slight delay due to regulatory concerns, Google addressed them and made Bard available in EU by mid-2023). ChatGPT supports many languages but the UI is primarily English (with community translations). Claude’s UI is English-centric but it will respond in other languages if prompted.
Integration examples: If you’re using Slack, both ChatGPT and Claude are accessible: OpenAI has an official Slack app for ChatGPT (which can summarize threads, answer queries in Slack) and Anthropic’s Claude was actually built into Slack’s own “@Assist” feature for paid plans. If you’re on Microsoft ecosystem, GPT-4 is integrated in Bing (free, limited) and broadly in Office (for enterprise). Google’s ecosystem will obviously favor Gemini (Android, ChromeOS, etc.). It’s plausible to use all three simultaneously: for example, some workflows have ChatGPT open in one tab, Claude in another (for cross-checking answers or using Claude’s long memory), and Google’s Bard/Gemini for searching or image generation – each excelling at different things.
In summary, ChatGPT is widely accessible via web, official apps, and integrations (plugins, third-party) – it has become almost a platform of its own. Claude is accessible via web and API, with growing integration in business tools and a focus on being an assistant for organizations (Slack, Notion, etc.). Gemini is pervasive wherever Google is – which means billions of users can potentially touch Gemini through search or Android, and for direct interaction the Bard/Gemini app is easy to use on phone and web. The choice of platform might simply come down to where you spend your digital life: if you use Google products a lot, Gemini will be at your fingertips; if you prefer independent chat interfaces, ChatGPT or Claude might be more appealing.
Strengths and Weaknesses: A Summary
Finally, to distill the notable strengths and weaknesses of each model:
ChatGPT (GPT-4.5): Strengths: It is highly polished and balanced in capabilities – excellent at creative writing, fluent and contextually aware answers, and very strong in knowledge and reasoning. It has a vast plugin ecosystem and tool integration, making it versatile (from creating images with DALL-E to browsing the web, to executing code). Users often praise ChatGPT’s user-friendly interface and how well it can produce well-structured, almost human-like answers in a conversational style. It also has the backing of continuous improvement and extensive testing – e.g., fewer glaring errors and a good understanding of user intent. Weaknesses: It has a fixed knowledge cutoff (Sept 2021 for GPT-4o, extended to 2023/2024 data in GPT-4.5 with search) – it still may not know very recent events without using the browsing tool. It also can be overly cautious at times, refusing requests that some other models might handle, due to OpenAI’s safety tuning. While its context window is large (32k or more), it’s less than Claude’s by default, meaning it might summarize or forget earlier parts in extremely long sessions (OpenAI is working on 100k+ contexts, but those are not yet default for consumers). Another weakness is formulaic answers – some users find ChatGPT’s style a bit templated (it often gives numbered lists or certain phrasings repetitively). OpenAI is addressing this by enabling more user control (Custom Instructions), but it’s a point of comparison where Claude, for instance, sometimes feels more flexible in tone. Also, because so many people use ChatGPT, its peak-time throttling was an issue historically (though by 2025 the capacity is much improved, plus Pro tier alleviates this).
Anthropic Claude 4: Strengths: Unparalleled context length and memory – Claude can digest enormous inputs (hundreds of pages) and maintain coherence, which is invaluable for tasks like analyzing lengthy reports or entire books. It has a very thoughtful and thorough style; Claude’s responses often contain nuanced discussion, which is great for analysis or advisory use cases. It is exceptional at coding, especially in situations requiring iterative problem-solving or handling large code files, as shown by benchmark wins. Claude is also polite and aligns with user intent well – thanks to the constitution, it tries to be helpful while staying within ethical bounds, and it will often go the extra mile to explain its reasoning or provide additional context. Users in professional settings might prefer Claude because it tends to produce more comprehensive outputs (sometimes you ask ChatGPT for a summary and get a paragraph, whereas Claude might give a one-page detailed summary, which can be either good or overkill depending on needs). Claude’s safety approach also means it’s less likely to have an “off day” and produce an answer that violates guidelines – it self-corrects to some degree. Weaknesses: Its over-verbosity can be a downside – sometimes Claude “writes an essay” where a short answer would do. This can make it slower for simple Q&A. While Claude is usually very good with facts, if it does hallucinate, it may also generate a very elaborate but wrong answer, which might be harder to spot because of the detail. Another weakness is that Claude doesn’t have as many consumer-facing integrations as ChatGPT or Google – for example, it doesn’t natively produce images or have a voice mode, and it isn’t as embedded in everyday apps (outside some business tools). Also, Claude’s compliance with queries can be hit-or-miss: if something triggers its constitutional rules, it might refuse or evade where ChatGPT might simply answer (for instance, Claude sometimes refused technical instructions involving the word “kill” (process) as noted earlier, or might be reluctant to take certain argumentative stances). Anthropic is fine-tuning this, but that sensitivity is a double-edged sword. Finally, availability – while Claude is available in many countries, it’s not as ubiquitous as Google; some regions might not have Claude’s service due to regulatory reasons.
Google Gemini (2.5 Pro): Strengths: Multimodality is the headline – Gemini can seamlessly incorporate images, audio, video with text, enabling use cases the others simply can’t (like analyzing a photo album, generating a short video, or answering a question about a diagram). The deep integration with Google’s ecosystem means it can be a true personal assistant – checking your calendar, drafting emails, summarizing a Google Doc, all in one flow, which is extremely powerful for productivity. It also has the benefit of real-time information – with built-in Google Search grounding, it can provide current answers with sources. Gemini’s planning abilities (from AlphaGo techniques) are a strength especially for structured tasks (like: “Plan a 5-stop road trip itinerary” – it might internally simulate and come up with a more optimal plan). Another strength: thanks to Google’s infrastructure, Gemini is scalable and fast – it’s deployed on TPU clusters globally, so it often feels responsive. And for coding or data tasks, the ability to use Gemini CLI and run code (especially within Colab or Android Studio) is a boon for developers. Weaknesses: It is relatively new and evolving, so some early quirks still show up (as of 2024/early 2025, users saw occasional factual errors and the need for more polish as noted by reviewers). Google’s cautious approach to feature rollout means some advanced features (like certain coding functions or deeper assistant integration) might still be in preview or only to select users. Another weakness is trust: some users might trust ChatGPT or Claude more for confidential queries since those are from independent AI firms with explicit privacy promises, whereas Google’s business model with data has historically been ad-related (though Google has said conversations with Gemini aren’t used for ads, some are still wary). Additionally, Gemini’s personality can sometimes be overly upbeat or apologetic, which can grate on some users compared to the more neutral tone of ChatGPT. And because it tries to be integrated with everything, sometimes it may feel less “focused” as a product – e.g., Bard had issues with consistent quality as it juggled being an experimental search bot vs a chat bot. Google is rapidly refining it, however. Lastly, if you’re not a heavy Google user, you might find less reason to prefer Gemini; many of its standout features shine in Google’s apps (for example, if one never uses Google Slides, the ability to generate slide images via Gemini won’t matter to that user).
To conclude, each model has carved out a niche: ChatGPT stands as a superb all-purpose conversationalist and problem-solver with a rich third-party plugin landscape and a slight edge in refined dialog; Claude is the choice for extensive, in-depth work – be it reading a novel-length document, acting as a diligent coding pair programmer, or having a highly principled discussion – often preferred for its lengthy and thoughtful responses; and Google’s Gemini is becoming the ultimate digital assistant that can see, hear, speak, and act across your digital world (especially if that world is Google-oriented), bringing AI assistance to everyday applications from search to spreadsheets in a very accessible way.
________
FOLLOW US FOR MORE.
DATA STUDIOS