top of page
Search

ChatGPT vs. Grok: Full Report and Comparison on Features, Models, Performance and more (July 2025)

Updated: Jul 19, 2025


ChatGPT by OpenAI and Grok by xAI are two of the most advanced conversational AI models available as of mid-2025. ChatGPT (launched Nov 2022) sparked the generative AI revolution and amassed over 180 million users worldwide. Grok is a newer rival introduced by Elon Musk’s xAI (late 2023) with a philosophy of more “unfiltered” and real-time responses. Below we compare their latest versions across all key aspects, from model architecture and performance to safety, usability, and pricing. Then... A summary table at the end highlights side-by-side differences.


Model Version and Architecture

  • ChatGPT (OpenAI): The current ChatGPT is powered by OpenAI’s GPT-4 family and newer “o-series” models. OpenAI continuously refines its models – for example, OpenAI o1 (a GPT-4 successor preview) and OpenAI o3 (2025) – which are advanced transformer-based LLMs trained with extensive Reinforcement Learning (RL) for longer reasoning. OpenAI doesn’t disclose exact model sizes, but GPT-4 is a dense model (parameters in the hundreds of billions) and GPT-4.5/o1/o3 represent incremental upgrades with improved reasoning and tool use. ChatGPT’s architecture is largely closed-source; it excels by combining a powerful base model with heavy fine-tuning (RLHF) for alignment and tool integration (web browsing, code interpreter, etc.). Notably, ChatGPT’s GPT-4 is multimodal (text + image input) and the latest “o3” model can agentically use tools (search, code) within ChatGPT to solve complex tasks.

  • Grok (xAI): Grok runs on xAI’s custom LLM Grok-1, evolved through versions 2, 3, and now Grok-4. Uniquely, Grok’s architecture uses a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) approach: the open-sourced Grok-1 base model has 314 billion parameters with experts (only ~25% active per token). This design allows extremely large model scales; indeed Grok-4 is rumored to be a 2.4 trillion-parameter model (making it one of the largest ever). It is trained on a “custom stack” (JAX and Rust on Kubernetes) and incorporates real-time data from the web and X (Twitter) in training. Grok’s later versions have dramatically increased training compute – e.g. xAI increased reinforcement learning compute 10× from Grok-3 to Grok-4 – to push reasoning performance. In practice, Grok-4 achieves cutting-edge benchmark scores, but its architecture heavily relies on tool-integrated reasoning (searching the web, using multiple agents) rather than just parametric knowledge. Grok’s design prioritizes long-form analytical thinking and up-to-date knowledge, even at the cost of being “a little chaotic” in style.


Performance and Benchmarks

Both models are top-tier in performance, but each excels in different areas...

  • ChatGPT: OpenAI’s GPT-4 and newer models set the standard on many benchmarks. GPT-4 was state-of-the-art in 2023 (e.g. ~86% on academic MMLU test, top coding and bar exam scores). By 2025, OpenAI o3 further improved on coding, math, and science benchmarks – o3 achieves new SOTA on Codeforces programming challenges and math competitions. In fact, OpenAI reported that its o1-pro mode (available in ChatGPT Pro) significantly outperforms earlier GPT-4 on difficult competitions like AIME (math) and Codeforces, with 86% pass@1 on AIME vs ~50% for GPT-4. ChatGPT is highly reliable for general-purpose tasks and “produces 20% fewer major errors than OpenAI’s previous model (o1) on hard real-world tasks”. In user-facing evaluations, ChatGPT remains an “all-purpose powerhouse” known for polished, correct output.

  • Grok: xAI’s Grok has rapidly improved and now rivals or exceeds ChatGPT on certain benchmarks. Grok-3 was found to outperform OpenAI’s latest (as of early 2025) on technical benchmarks – for example, in one test Grok-3 scored 93.3% on a math competition (AIME 2025) vs OpenAI’s model ~79%, and similarly led in science QA (84.6% vs 78%) and coding tasks. Grok-4 goes even further: it reportedly “hits new high-water marks” on a wide array of frontier benchmarks, including advanced reasoning and agent-based tests. Its benchmark results “wiped the floor” compared to most models, even dethroning Google’s Gemini on long-context tasks. However, there’s a caveat – Grok’s impressive test scores don’t always translate to everyday usage. Early “vibe tests” of Grok-4 found it “overcooked” for benchmarks and only middling in open-ended user queries. In sum, Grok currently holds the edge in STEM reasoning speed and some complex tasks, while ChatGPT still dominates in broad general-purpose performance and consistency.


Accuracy and Reliability

  • ChatGPT: OpenAI has tuned ChatGPT for high accuracy and minimal hallucinations in most domains. It tends to produce well-supported answers and even provides source citations when using web access, which aids trustworthiness. In fact, ChatGPT is “among the most accurate AI assistants available, especially when GPT-4 Turbo is paired with browsing or file analysis”, handling nuanced prompts and maintaining context reliably over long dialogues. It usually responds with cautious, measured language on controversial topics and includes disclaimers or refuses if a query violates its guidelines. Users in professional settings often trust ChatGPT’s answers due to these reliability safeguards. That said, it is not infallible – ChatGPT can still confidently hallucinate incorrect facts on obscure topics, and complex real-time queries depend on the quality of information retrieved. Overall, its accuracy is rated very high (OpenAI’s models are top-ranked on code correctness and factual QA) and it shows strong consistency in evaluations.

  • Grok: Grok’s accuracy is more variable, influenced by its real-time data usage and humorous bent. xAI explicitly notes that “Grok is not 100% accurate and can still generate false or contradictory information”, much like other LLMs. In practice, Grok sometimes prioritizes style or speed over rigorous accuracy – it can deliver snappy, up-to-date answers but may omit context or proper sourcing. For example, Grok often pulls facts from X posts or the web in real-time; while this means it can include the latest info, it also risks echoing unverified or biased content if not carefully cross-checked. Reviewers note that Grok’s responses can be “hit or miss” – it excels on pop culture or live trends, but is “less accurate with complex queries or structured data” outside its training focus. Additionally, Grok’s penchant for wit can lead it to dodge questions or inject sarcasm instead of directly answering, which might sacrifice factual completeness. In summary, Grok can provide brilliant insights (especially on technical or math problems) but is not as consistently reliable as ChatGPT for factual precision across all topics. Users must sometimes verify Grok’s outputs, as it offers fewer built-in citations and guardrails.


Reasoning, Coding, and Writing Capabilities

  • Logical Reasoning: Both models are excellent, but with different strengths. ChatGPT is known for structured, step-by-step reasoning – it breaks down complex problems clearly and logically, making it ideal for well-organized analyses or explanations. It has strong performance in areas like programming, mathematics, and stepwise logic, especially using GPT-4 and above. In coding challenges, for instance, ChatGPT is “one of the best AI code generators” available, often producing correct and well-commented code on the first try. Grok, in contrast, shines at flexible, exploratory reasoning. Its DeepSearch and “Big Brain” modes allow it to research in real time and consider current knowledge. This makes Grok well-suited for open-ended questions, brainstorming, and technical problem-solving where pulling recent data or iteratively analyzing a scenario helps. In fact, Grok-3 demonstrated superior performance on technical reasoning benchmarks (e.g. higher scores on math word problems and scientific QA) compared to OpenAI’s models. Users have found Grok’s analytical answers on STEM questions to be very strong – it can “handle complex questions with a more flexible approach,” searching and analyzing as needed. However, Grok’s reasoning can sometimes appear tangential or overly verbose due to its multi-step “thinking” mode (it might spend ~50 seconds in a “think” phase for hard problems), whereas ChatGPT typically responds in a few seconds with a concise logical structure.

  • Coding: ChatGPT is generally the more reliable coder, while Grok is faster with certain tasks. ChatGPT has been extensively used for code generation, debugging, and explaining algorithms. It supports many programming languages (Python, JavaScript, SQL, etc.) and is rated 8.7/10 by developers for code accuracy and quality. It tends to produce correct, executable code and can even walk through its logic if asked. Grok also offers coding help and can generate code in common languages, leveraging real-time data (e.g. to fetch latest library syntax). In tests, Grok sometimes provides more creative or optimized code solutions quickly, especially in algorithmic challenges. For example, one study found “Grok was faster at coding than GPT” on certain tasks. However, Grok’s code answers may lack polish or completeness – a direct comparison showed Grok’s solution interface was less complete (missing functionality) compared to ChatGPT’s fully working code. ChatGPT’s meticulousness gives it an edge in producing robust, ready-to-run code, whereas Grok might deliver a clever snippet with better comments or UI ideas but occasionally misses requirements. Both can debug and explain code, though ChatGPT is more precise and methodical while Grok is capable but “not as robust” for complex coding tasks.

  • Writing and Creativity: Both models can generate high-quality written content, yet their styles differ. ChatGPT is highly versatile in writing – it can produce coherent essays, professional emails, creative stories, translations, and more. It excels at maintaining a given tone or persona (e.g. academic vs. casual) and following detailed instructions. In a creative writing test, ChatGPT’s story was better balanced and more emotionally resonant, fulfilling all prompt requirements neatly. It generally outputs more polished and formally structured text (sometimes even overly verbose or “safe” in tone). Grok brings a more playful and edgy style to writing. It’s noted for its humor, sarcasm, and internet-savvy tone – essentially, Grok writes like an “extremely online” personality. This can make its stories or answers feel very human and fun, as it injects wit and cultural references freely. In certain creative tasks, Grok’s imagination shines: for example, when asked to explain a concept to a child, Grok gave a response with “more vivid imagery and storytelling” that better captured a young audience’s imagination. Its informal style can be engaging, but sometimes comes at the cost of nuance or seriousness for formal writing. Overall, ChatGPT is preferred for well-structured, nuanced writing (from marketing copy to tutoring explanations), whereas Grok is great for casual content, quippy one-liners, memes, or trend-driven commentary. Many users still “use ChatGPT for most tasks” that require reliability, turning to Grok for a fresh or humorous take.


Supported Languages

  • ChatGPT: OpenAI trained ChatGPT on a diverse corpus, enabling it to respond in dozens of languages. It is most fluent in English but also highly capable in Spanish, French, German, Chinese, Japanese, and many others. GPT-4 particularly improved multilingual performance, achieving strong results on academic benchmarks across languages (often nearing English-level performance for major languages). By design, ChatGPT can translate between languages and understand non-English prompts. Users around the world have successfully used it in languages such as Italian, Portuguese, Arabic, Hindi, etc. However, subtle linguistic nuances or less-common languages may see some decline in quality. Still, ChatGPT is considered one of the most multilingual LLMs publicly available (with support for input/output in any language using the Latin, Cyrillic, or even logographic scripts). In short, ChatGPT offers broad language support out-of-the-box, which has made it popular globally.

  • Grok: xAI initially launched Grok primarily for English (given its training on X posts and web text, which skew English). But recent updates have greatly expanded Grok’s multilingual support. In December 2024, xAI rolled out improved multi-lingual capabilities in Grok-2, with testing across languages like Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Hindi, Chinese, Italian, French, Japanese, and Korean. Grok can now detect and respond in over 45 languages, according to xAI’s announcements, and Musk even touted support for “145+ languages, with voice” input/output as of 2025. This means users can converse with Grok in major world languages and even receive spoken responses in those languages. The multilingual quality is improving – xAI reported higher instruction-following scores in many non-English languages after the update. That said, Grok’s non-English output may still be less polished than ChatGPT’s, especially for languages not widely represented on social media. Grok’s strength lies in languages popular on X platform (e.g. English, Spanish, Hindi – which were explicitly targeted). For less common tongues or highly formal language use, ChatGPT might still have an edge. But xAI is clearly pushing Grok toward broad language support, which significantly “expands its utility” in emerging markets beyond English.


Integration Options and Platform Availability

  • ChatGPT: OpenAI has made ChatGPT widely available and integrable across platforms. It is accessible through the official web interface (chat.openai.com) on any browser and via dedicated mobile apps for iOS and Android. Moreover, OpenAI provides a robust API that developers can use to integrate ChatGPT (and underlying models) into their own applications. This has led to ChatGPT being embedded in numerous products and services – for instance, Microsoft’s AI-powered Bing Chat and Office Copilot leverage OpenAI’s GPT-4. The ChatGPT ecosystem is growing into an AI productivity platform: OpenAI introduced features like Custom GPTs (user-defined chatbot personas/tools), shared team workspaces, and the ability to analyze files or create code projects within ChatGPT. Through plugins, ChatGPT Plus users can connect the chatbot to third-party services (for example, retrieving travel info or executing math via Wolfram). In short, ChatGPT is highly platform-neutral and integration-friendly – you can use it on web, mobile, or integrate it into enterprise software via API. OpenAI’s partnerships (e.g. with Microsoft) further ensure ChatGPT is available in office suites, search engines, and more. Geographically, ChatGPT is available in most countries worldwide (with a few exceptions due to regulations), simply requiring an internet connection and sign-up.

  • Grok: Grok began as a feature inside the X (Twitter) platform and has since expanded to its own apps and API. Initially, Grok was accessible only to X Premium+ subscribers via the Twitter interface – users would see a “Grok” tab or could share chats on their X timeline. In early 2025, xAI launched a standalone Grok website (grok.com) and Grok mobile apps for iOS/Android. Now, one can chat with Grok on the web or phone app, similar to using ChatGPT, without going through Twitter’s UI. However, some of Grok’s functionality still ties into X – for example, it natively uses X data for real-time context (trending topics) and allows sharing responses back to X. Integration options for Grok are more limited than ChatGPT’s at this stage. There is no plugin ecosystem or custom integrations into other software yet (Grok is “self-contained… not a platform” in the sense of extensibility). On the upside, xAI has introduced a public API for Grok (beta launched in late 2024). Developers can sign up on x.ai’s console and get API access to Grok’s models (including Grok-2 text and vision models) to embed into their applications. This API is newer and less widely adopted than OpenAI’s, but it represents a step toward integration. In summary, Grok is accessible via X and its own apps, and now offers an API – but it doesn’t yet match ChatGPT’s deep integration into third-party ecosystems or the multitude of platforms where OpenAI’s models appear. Geographically, Grok’s availability was initially limited (U.S. only), though xAI has been expanding access (e.g. launching in India and other regions in 2024). Still, using Grok requires an X account and (for full features) a subscription, which is a narrower availability model than ChatGPT’s open web access.


Access Methods (Web, Mobile, API)

  • ChatGPT: Users can access ChatGPT in multiple ways. The primary method is through OpenAI’s web interface, which offers a chat UI with conversation history, editing, and other tools. OpenAI also launched official mobile apps (first iOS, then Android) that sync conversations and even support voice input for speaking with ChatGPT. For developers and businesses, the OpenAI API provides programmatic access to ChatGPT’s models (GPT-4, GPT-3.5 Turbo, etc.), enabling integration into websites, apps, or chatbots. This API access has been widely adopted – for example, many customer support chatbots and productivity apps call OpenAI’s API on the backend. Additionally, ChatGPT can be accessed through partner integrations like Microsoft’s Bing (which uses GPT-4 via API) and other platforms that embedded ChatGPT (often labeled as “Powered by OpenAI”). The variety of access points – web UI for general users, mobile apps for on-the-go chats, and APIs for custom integration – makes ChatGPT highly versatile. Both free and paid tiers are available (with some differences in model access, discussed later in Pricing). Using ChatGPT typically just requires an OpenAI account login.

  • Grok: The access methods for Grok have expanded from a single platform to a few options. Originally, Grok was only available within X (Twitter) – subscribers would chat with Grok on the X site or app. Now, xAI has made Grok available on a dedicated website (grok.com) where users can log in and use a web chat interface, much like ChatGPT’s site. There are also Grok mobile apps for iOS and Android, allowing voice and image interactions as well. These apps were introduced as Grok evolved beyond Twitter. Finally, as noted, xAI provides an API for Grok: developers can get API keys to integrate Grok’s model into their own tools. The API supports both the text model and the vision model, and xAI even offered free trial credits to entice developers. This means one could build a custom chatbot or agent leveraging Grok’s capabilities (particularly its real-time information retrieval). It’s worth mentioning that because Grok is still tied to X’s ecosystem, some features (like real-time trending context) may function best when accessed via X directly. Also, Grok’s API and apps are relatively new, so they may not be as polished as OpenAI’s offerings yet. In summary, you can access Grok via the X platform, the official Grok web/app, or the API – but all these require an X.ai account with the appropriate subscription. Unlike ChatGPT, there is no free universally open web access (though xAI did experiment with limited free trials for X users in late 2024).


Developer Tools and APIs

  • ChatGPT (OpenAI): OpenAI offers extensive support for developers. The core is the OpenAI API platform, where developers can access models like GPT-3.5, GPT-4, etc. This API includes features such as function calling (the model can output structured JSON for easy tool integration) and fine-grained control over model parameters. OpenAI has also enabled fine-tuning for certain models (GPT-3.5 Turbo can be fine-tuned on custom data as of 2024), allowing developers to tailor the model to specific tasks or company data. Moreover, OpenAI’s ecosystem provides documentation, SDKs, and an active developer community. There is an official Python library, and many third-party libraries, making it straightforward to integrate ChatGPT into applications. On the ChatGPT interface side, OpenAI introduced Plugins and Custom GPTs, which are tools developers can create to extend ChatGPT’s functionality (for example, a plugin that lets ChatGPT query a proprietary database, or a custom GPT that has knowledge of a particular documentation set). For enterprise developers, OpenAI launched ChatGPT Enterprise which offers enhanced API usage, security (SOC 2 compliance), and the ability to analyze company files securely within the ChatGPT UI. In short, OpenAI provides a rich set of developer tools: from APIs and fine-tuning to plugin frameworks – making ChatGPT not just an app, but a platform others can build on.

  • Grok (xAI): Developer options for Grok are emerging as xAI opens up its platform. The major offering is the xAI Grok API. As of late 2024, xAI made Grok’s models available via a REST API in public beta. Developers can sign up on the xAI console and obtain API keys to use Grok-2 (and presumably Grok-3/4 as they’re released) in their own software. The API supports text completion and also an image analysis/generation endpoint (the grok-vision model). xAI notably reduced the pricing for API usage to $2 per 1M input tokens and $10 per 1M output tokens to attract users – comparable to OpenAI’s price for large-context GPT-3.5. They also provided free credits to encourage experimentation. In addition to the API, xAI took the unusual step of open-sourcing Grok’s base model (Grok-1) code in 2023. This means researchers can inspect how Grok was built, or even run a pared-down version (though the 314B MoE model is not trivial to deploy). The open-source release was philosophically motivated (Musk’s stance on “open” AI) and allows the community to suggest improvements or use Grok-1 under certain licenses. In practical terms, however, the advanced Grok versions (2,3,4) are proprietary and available only via xAI’s services – developers cannot self-host Grok-4. As for tools, Grok does not yet have a plugin system or a way to fine-tune the model via API (no mention of fine-tuning interface as of July 2025). Its developer documentation is also newer and less comprehensive than OpenAI’s. Summary: Developers can integrate Grok through the official API (with competitive pricing), and they have transparency via the open-source Grok-1 code. But the ecosystem is nascent – fewer libraries and community integrations exist compared to OpenAI’s, and advanced customization (plugins, fine-tuning) is not available for Grok at this time.


Safety, Privacy, and Moderation Features

  • ChatGPT: Safety and content moderation are core to ChatGPT’s design. OpenAI employs strict content filters and policies that ChatGPT must follow. It refuses requests for disallowed content (e.g. hate speech, violent instructions, self-harm advice) and generally avoids giving opinions on sensitive topics. ChatGPT is described as “polite, clear, and a little buttoned-up” – it errs on the side of caution. This makes it suitable for professional and educational use, as it “tends to be cautious and measured when discussing controversial or high-risk topics”, often adding disclaimers. OpenAI continuously updates its moderation system to handle new kinds of problematic prompts. On the privacy front, OpenAI has given users more control: ChatGPT settings allow turning off chat history, which ensures those conversations are not used in model training and are deleted after 30 days. For business users, ChatGPT Enterprise guarantees that no prompts or data are retained or seen by trainers – data stays private. OpenAI also implements encryption and security best practices for its API and enterprise offerings. In terms of compliance, OpenAI has a detailed privacy policy and has worked to comply with regulations (resolving, for example, a temporary ban in Italy by introducing user privacy controls). Overall, ChatGPT is considered trustworthy and “audit-friendly”: it provides sources for factual claims when possible, avoids inappropriate content, and doesn’t leak private info it was not trained to reveal. Of course, one trade-off is that ChatGPT might feel overly restrictive to some users – it will refuse certain requests or produce sanitized outputs.

  • Grok: Grok takes a more laissez-faire approach to content, under Elon Musk’s philosophy of fewer limits. It is often characterized as “fast, unfiltered, and a little chaotic”. Indeed, Grok is “the least filtered” of the major chatbots (compared to ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini). It is willing to comment on or joke about sensitive topics more directly, whereas ChatGPT might abstain. For example, Grok has a built-in “Fun mode” that can respond with edgy humor and sarcasm. Users have observed that Grok may occasionally generate controversial or politically incorrect quips – reflecting Musk’s intent for it to be a bit irreverent. However, this openness can be a double-edged sword: Grok’s responses might include biased or offensive elements if the prompt skews that way, and it doesn’t always include the caveats that ChatGPT would. xAI claims to emphasize “responsible use of humor”, and Grok does avoid explicit hate speech or illegal instruction in our tests, so there are still moderation rules in place. But compared to ChatGPT, Grok’s moderation is lighter – for instance, a user experimenting with prompts found ChatGPT refused a request that analyzed a person’s photo for “beauty”, whereas Grok 4 not only complied but cleverly helped the user bypass ChatGPT’s filter by rephrasing the prompt. This indicates Grok will assist with queries that OpenAI’s system would flag as inappropriate (within certain bounds). On privacy, using Grok requires an X account, and it’s not entirely clear how xAI handles user prompts – presumably they might use them to further train the model (since Musk is less averse to using public data). xAI has not publicly detailed data handling like OpenAI has. On the positive side, Grok being more open means it can sometimes discuss topics more frankly and “comment or joke more freely”, which some users appreciate. But this also means higher risk: without strong guardrails, Grok’s answers can occasionally be “biased, incomplete or risky”, especially for serious advice. In summary, Grok trades off some safety strictness for a more unrestricted user experience. It’s best suited for savvy users who can handle that freedom, whereas ChatGPT is optimized for safe, controlled interactions (ideal for enterprise or sensitive contexts).


User Experience and UI Design

  • ChatGPT: Over time, ChatGPT’s interface and UX have become highly polished. On the web UI, each conversation is saved in a sidebar (unless history is disabled), allowing users to revisit or rename chats. The design is clean, with AI responses in a chat bubble format. ChatGPT’s UI automatically formats code outputs in syntax-highlighted blocks with a “copy code” button – very convenient for developers. It can also render tables, lists, or markdown formatting, making the outputs easy to read. Users can edit their last question or ask follow-ups to refine answers. OpenAI has also integrated features like voice input/output (on mobile apps, you can talk to ChatGPT and it will speak back using a realistic TTS voice). Image upload is supported in the UI for GPT-4: you can send an image and ask ChatGPT to analyze or describe it, with the image appearing inline. The overall UX is focused on clarity and ease of use: for example, ChatGPT explicitly shows when it’s using a tool (like browsing) and often provides citations for information from the web. On performance, ChatGPT (especially the plus version) is quite fast and responsive; even though models like GPT-4 are heavy, OpenAI has optimized inference and uses GPT-4 Turbo variants to ensure quick replies. Users have rarely any downtime, and the system handles high load with queuing for free users if needed. Customization of the UX includes light/dark mode and the ability to toggle between models in the dropdown. In essence, ChatGPT delivers a smooth, professional user experience refined through extensive user feedback – suitable for everything from casual Q&A to lengthy research sessions.

  • Grok: Grok’s user experience has evolved from a basic integration in X to its own dedicated interface. In the early X implementation, using Grok felt like chatting in a social media DM – not much in terms of formatting or persistent history. (In fact, initially Grok did not support chat history: you couldn’t scroll back to past sessions within the UI.) By mid-2025, the standalone Grok web/app interface offers a more traditional chat experience with improvements. Grok’s UI now supports image generation and display inline (via its Aurora image model), and it can accept image inputs for its vision model. It also introduced voice chat, so you can talk to Grok and hear it respond, similar to ChatGPT’s mobile app. Grok’s style of response is what defines the UX: it often uses a casual tone, even using emojis or internet slang when appropriate, which makes the interaction feel like texting with a witty friend rather than a formal AI assistant. This can be very engaging for informal queries. On the downside, Grok’s focus on humor can interfere with the UX for serious tasks – e.g. a user might ask a complex question and Grok might insert a snarky remark or sidestep with a joke, requiring the user to prod it back on track. Another aspect is that Grok’s integration with X means it has a social sharing element: you can easily share a Grok answer to your X feed (the UI has a share button), and it even prompts you to verify the content before posting. This social approach is unique to Grok, encouraging a communal experience (for example, people on X posting interesting answers from Grok, which in turn markets the bot). In terms of speed and reliability: Grok is generally fast (comparable to ChatGPT’s speed in most cases). But being tied to X’s infrastructure, some users have noted it can be a bit less stable – e.g. if X’s site is under heavy load or having issues, Grok might lag or fail to load, whereas ChatGPT runs on OpenAI’s independent platform which is quite stable. Summing up, Grok’s UX is geared toward a fun, conversational vibe with seamless social media integration. It has improved with added multimodal features, though it still feels a bit less mature than ChatGPT’s interface (for instance, handling of long conversations or complex formatting is not as smooth as ChatGPT). For users who enjoy a casual, “meme-like” AI personality, Grok’s UI and experience are very appealing; for those who need a very organized, archival chat tool, ChatGPT’s interface might be preferable.


Customization and Memory

  • Memory (Context Length): One notable difference is the context window (how much conversation history the model can remember). ChatGPT’s GPT-4 traditionally had an 8K to 32K token context limit. By mid-2025, OpenAI introduced an expanded context version (GPT-4 Turbo 128K) for API and select users, allowing up to 128,000 tokens of context. This is ~100k words, enough for entire documents. Most ChatGPT Plus users interact with ~32K or 128K context models when needed, which is “more than enough for most users”. Grok takes context length to another level – Grok-3 advertised support for up to 1 million tokens in a conversation. This is huge (equivalent to an entire book), theoretically enabling Grok to handle very long chats or massive documents. Grok achieves this via its DeepSearch/DeeperSearch modes, which can retrieve and summarize content on the fly to effectively extend context. In practice, such a large context is used in chunks (Grok doesn’t literally attend to 1M tokens at once, but it can search/index content to simulate a long memory). Still, for users needing long conversations, Grok has an advantage in memory range. That said, extremely long sessions may be unwieldy and potentially slow with Grok heavy reasoning modes. ChatGPT’s memory is more “structured” – it often summarizes or refocuses if a thread gets too long, to stay within its limit.

  • Personalization and Personas: ChatGPT allows some customization of its behavior through Custom Instructions (users can set a persistent profile like “You are talking to a teacher, answer at a 5th grade level” and it will remember that in every chat). Moreover, the new Custom GPTs feature lets users create their own chatbot personas with specific instructions or knowledge bases and share them. This means you can have a ChatGPT tuned to your style or loaded with your documents, acting as a personal assistant. ChatGPT’s API also allows system messages to guide the model’s tone. Grok has a simpler approach: it introduced two built-in modes – Regular vs. Fun – which the user can toggle. Fun mode injects more humor/sarcasm, while Regular is a standard helpful tone (though Grok’s “regular” is still more informal than ChatGPT). Aside from that, Grok does not offer user-defined personas or memory of user preferences across sessions. Each new conversation starts fresh (unless you feed it context again or use the same thread). Grok’s style is somewhat fixed to its Musk-inspired personality, whereas ChatGPT can chameleon into various styles given the right prompt or profile.

  • Fine-tuning and Custom Data: If an organization or advanced user needs a model customized on proprietary data, OpenAI provides a path: fine-tuning smaller models like GPT-3.5 on custom text, or using retrieval augmentation (ChatGPT Plugins or Embeddings API to let ChatGPT look up company documents). ChatGPT Enterprise even allows uploading multiple files (PDFs, etc.) for analysis with Advanced Data Analysis (formerly Code Interpreter) – effectively giving ChatGPT extended knowledge for that session. xAI/Grok does not currently support fine-tuning by end-users. However, Grok’s file upload integration (OneDrive/Google Workspace) hints that you can give it documents to analyze within a chat. Grok supports uploading common file types (DOCX, CSV, etc.) and can connect to your cloud drives to fetch data. This is analogous to ChatGPT’s file analysis feature, though xAI hasn’t publicized the limits. The G2 review noted xAI hadn’t shared file size limits, whereas ChatGPT allowed up to 512 MB files with clear limits for free users. So both can ingest custom data per session, but persistent fine-tuning is only straightforward with OpenAI’s tools.

So... ChatGPT offers more in terms of persistent customization (remembering user instructions globally, custom chatbot creation, formal fine-tuning options via API). Grok provides very large context and some mode switching, but it’s more of a one-personality fits all model in day-to-day use.


Availability and Limitations

  • ChatGPT: OpenAI’s ChatGPT is broadly available worldwide with minimal sign-up friction. Anyone can create a free account (email and phone verification) and start using the free ChatGPT (GPT-3.5). Some regions have restrictions – OpenAI does not operate in a handful of countries due to U.S. export controls or local laws, and occasionally there have been country-specific blocks (e.g. Italy briefly banned ChatGPT in 2023 but it was restored after compliance steps). Generally, however, ChatGPT is accessible in the Americas, Europe, Asia, and beyond. The free version has certain usage limits (like slower response speed and occasional capacity errors at peak times), but no strict daily quota. The paid ChatGPT Plus is available to users in supported countries for $20/month and unlocks GPT-4 and priority access. There is also ChatGPT Teams for small businesses and Enterprise plans for companies – these require a bit more setup (contacting sales for enterprise). In terms of sign-up requirements: you must be at least 13 (with parental consent if under 18 per OpenAI’s terms) and agree to data usage terms. OpenAI has made efforts to comply with privacy requirements, so in certain jurisdictions (EU) they allow users to opt-out of data processing. There are no specific invite waitlists anymore; it’s open to all users except as restricted by country. One limitation to note: ChatGPT’s knowledge cutoff for its base training data is September 2021 (for GPT-4), and October 2023 for newer models like GPT-4.5/o1. This means out-of-the-box it doesn’t “know” events after that date unless you use the browsing tool. It can fetch recent info via web access (for Plus users), but free ChatGPT will not have up-to-date knowledge without an external plugin. This is a designed limitation to ensure quality and safety of the training data.


  • Grok: During its rollout, Grok was much more limited in availability. Initially, only users in the United States (and possibly a few other regions like Canada/UK) who subscribed to X Premium+ could access Grok. As of July 2025, xAI has started expanding access somewhat – for instance, they announced Grok’s launch in India and added multilingual support to target more markets. Still, Grok is not as universally accessible as ChatGPT. To use Grok, one typically needs to sign up for X Premium Plus (the highest tier of Twitter’s subscription). This linkage to Twitter is a hurdle: you must have an X account (which in some countries might require ID verification for the paid tier) and then pay the monthly fee to unlock Grok. There have been indications of a standalone “SuperGrok” subscription for those who don’t care about other X features, but generally it’s the same concept – a paid plan tied to your identity on X. There was a brief free preview for some X users in late 2024 (as noted, Grok-2 was “rolled out to all users on X for free” in a trial), but xAI likely ended the free trial to move to a subscription model. Thus, unlike ChatGPT which has a free tier open to anyone, Grok is paywalled from the start for most users. In terms of limitations: Grok leverages real-time data and claims “no hard knowledge cutoff”, so it’s always as up-to-date as the latest X posts or web crawl. However, it may still have gaps in specialized knowledge not present in its training or current feeds. Another limitation is that Grok’s usage might be capped by X’s policies – for example, if you hit certain query limits or if the service is in beta, xAI could throttle heavy usage. They haven’t publicly detailed quotas, but Premium+ users likely get a generous allotment, whereas any future free version would be limited. Additionally, because Grok is integrated with X, any geographical restrictions on X (e.g. countries where Twitter is banned or limited) would also affect Grok’s availability. Finally, corporate or educational environments that require data privacy might not approve Grok yet, since it’s tied to a social media login and doesn’t have an enterprise isolation like ChatGPT Enterprise offers. In summary, Grok’s availability is currently more exclusive – one must be in a supported country, willing to pay for X Premium, and use the service within Twitter’s ecosystem or the new Grok apps with that login. This will hopefully broaden over time, but as of mid-2025 it’s a narrower audience compared to the globally accessible ChatGPT.


Pricing Tiers and Plans

Both ChatGPT and Grok offer multiple pricing tiers (including premium plans with enhanced features). Here’s a breakdown:

  • ChatGPT Pricing: OpenAI provides a Free tier and several paid options:

    • Free Tier: $0 – Allows unlimited chats with GPT-3.5 Turbo (the lighter model). This is sufficient for basic conversations and has no monthly message cap, but it does not include GPT-4 except maybe a few trial messages occasionally. Free users also have lower priority (during peak times, they might experience slower responses or have to wait).

    • ChatGPT Plus: $20/month – The standard premium plan for individuals. Plus gives access to GPT-4 (the more advanced model) and other beta features. Plus users get faster responses, priority access even when demand is high, and can opt into features like Browsing (SearchGPT) and DALL·E 3 image generation within ChatGPT. This is the most popular upgrade for power users who want better quality and up-to-date info via plugins/browsing.

    • ChatGPT Teams: $25/user/month – A plan aimed at teams or small businesses, introduced in 2024. It includes everything in Plus, but allows centralized billing/manage multiple seats and sharing chat folders among a team.

    • ChatGPT Pro: $200/month – A high-end plan (launched Dec 2024) for professionals and researchers needing maximum performance. Pro subscribers get unlimited access to OpenAI’s most advanced models, including the premium “OpenAI o1” model and previews of upcoming versions. Pro also includes an “o1 Pro” mode which uses more compute per query to give even more reliable, detailed answers for the hardest problems. Essentially, Pro tier unlocks everything: longer context, priority processing, advanced voice, Deep Research mode with more web usage, and early access to new model updates. It’s priced steeply for those who absolutely rely on cutting-edge AI daily.

    • Enterprise Plans: (Custom pricing) – For larger organizations, OpenAI offers ChatGPT Enterprise with volume-based pricing. Enterprise includes unlimited GPT-4 usage, 32k or higher context, data encryption, SLA uptime guarantees, and admin tools. Prices aren’t public, but it’s generally more cost-effective per user for large deployments than individual Pro accounts.

    Notably, OpenAI’s pricing strategy keeps the entry barrier low (free) and upsells advanced capabilities at higher tiers. For most users, $20/month Plus is enough. The $200 Pro is targeted at heavy users and comes with substantial benefits (priority on newest models like o3, as G2 notes: “access to research previews of GPT-4.5 and o1 Pro mode”). If one compares value, ChatGPT Plus at $20 is relatively affordable for the performance it offers.


  • Grok Pricing: Grok’s access is tied to X Premium+, which historically cost $16/month (in the US) for the subscription. Initially, that $16 got you all Premium+ features (verified badge, higher post limits on X, etc.) plus Grok. In mid-2025, xAI/X started branding the AI subscription as “SuperGrok” – which is roughly $30/month, with a discount to ~$300/year if paid annually. It appears that X Premium tiers may have been restructured, or SuperGrok is an add-on that provides extended AI usage. According to one source, “SuperGrok: $30/month for higher usage quotas on grok.com”. This suggests $30 is the plan for power users of Grok (perhaps analogous to ChatGPT Plus). It’s a bit unclear because X Premium+ at $16 was originally the only needed payment; possibly, by 2025 they raised the price for new sign-ups or introduced a separate plan for direct Grok access via grok.com. We also know xAI offers a $300/month SuperGrok Heavy plan for the absolutely top model (Grok-4 Heavy with multi-agent reasoning) – that is a specialized tier similar to ChatGPT Pro’s role. In a comparison of top AI services, “xAI SuperGrok Heavy: $300/month” is listed alongside ChatGPT Pro $200. So:

    • X Premium+ (Basic Grok): ~$16–$20/month – Allows use of Grok (standard model, limited if any access to Heavy mode) via X and apps. Possibly limited number of prompts or slower response for heavy queries.

    • SuperGrok (Enhanced): $30/month (or $300/year) – This likely corresponds to full access to Grok’s capabilities on the standalone platform, higher limits, and priority for new features. It may be that existing Premium+ users were grandfathered at lower cost, but new users pay $30 for the AI specifically.

    • SuperGrok Heavy: $300/month – This is a top tier for the enthusiasts or enterprises who want the maximum power of Grok-4 Heavy (which “spawns multiple agents” for parallel reasoning). It’s analogous to ChatGPT Pro, offering the absolute best model with the highest compute usage. Few individual users would pay this, but it’s available.

    • Enterprise API pricing: If using the Grok API, pricing is per token as mentioned ($2 per million input tokens, etc.), which is separate from the UI subscription. An organization might license the API instead of users individually subscribing.


Unlike ChatGPT, Grok currently does not have a free tier open to everyone. There was a hint of a free basic access for all X users during a test, but going forward, xAI’s model is monetization via X subscriptions. This means the minimum price to legitimately use Grok is around $16–30 monthly (aside from any limited trial). This higher entry cost is a barrier for casual users, whereas ChatGPT’s free tier draws in a huge audience. However, those already in the X ecosystem might see value in the combined social media + AI bundle.

In terms of value, ChatGPT Plus at $20 vs “SuperGrok” at $30 – ChatGPT offers a more mature feature set (plugins, many integrations, GPT-4 quality) while Grok offers real-time data and a unique tone. For heavy-duty needs, ChatGPT Pro at $200 vs Grok Heavy at $300: ChatGPT’s is cheaper and includes multiple advanced models (o1, o3, etc.), whereas Grok Heavy touts the raw benchmark-leading performance but at a higher cost. Each pricing scheme aligns with the provider’s strategy: OpenAI aims for broad adoption (hence a solid free tier and affordable plus), xAI/X aims to premium-ize AI as a feature of a subscription service (hence bundling with Twitter perks and no free lunch).

Below is a comparison table summarizing key points side-by-side:


__________

Comparison Table: ChatGPT vs. Grok (July 2025)


Aspect

OpenAI ChatGPT (latest GPT-4/o-series)

xAI Grok (latest Grok-4)

Model & Architecture

GPT-4 and successors (closed model, transformer); highly fine-tuned with RLHF. Unknown params (estimated hundreds of billions). Multimodal (text & image). Latest “o3” model uses tools agentically for advanced reasoning.

Grok-1 custom LLM (314B MoE) with evolving versions (Grok-3, Grok-4). Rumored 2.4T parameters in Grok-4 (MoE architecture). Integrates real-time web data into training. Emphasizes long-form reasoning and tool use.

Performance

State-of-the-art general performance. Excels in creative tasks, writing, coding, and broad knowledge. Sets SOTA on many benchmarks in 2023–24. Newer models (o1/o3) further improve coding, math, etc.. Highly consistent and reliable in varied tasks.

Top technical benchmark scores. Grok-3/4 outperform GPT models on STEM benchmarks (e.g. +14% in math, +6% in science QA). Grok-4 “wipes the floor” on certain frontier benchmarks. Particularly strong at complex reasoning and real-time data tasks. Slightly less consistent in open-ended tasks (optimized for benchmarks).

Accuracy & Reliability

Very high factual accuracy, with cautious tone. Provides sources when using web (citations). Rarely hallucinates on common topics; strong at saying “I don’t know” for uncertain answers. Strict filters prevent risky content. Overall trusted for professional use.

Mixed: fast and up-to-date but sometimes sacrifices accuracy for speed or humor. Can pull real-time info (more current) but with fewer citations and context. Sometimes gives snarky or shallow answers on serious queries. Tends to be correct on technical problems it “thinks through,” but can falter on factual precision in general knowledge.

Reasoning & Problem Solving

Excellent structured reasoning. Breaks down problems step-by-step clearly. Great at coding logic, math proofs, and multi-hop explanations (especially with new tool-use abilities). Generalist problem-solver – adapts to diverse domains with logic and clarity.

Flexible, deep reasoning with external information. Uses DeepSearch to research answers. Excels at technical and analytical reasoning – e.g. complex math, troubleshooting with real-time data. Its Think mode allows thorough analysis (at cost of speed). Sometimes less structured – may need guidance to stay on track.

Coding

One of the best for code generation & debugging. Supports many languages (Python, JS, C#, etc.). Produces well-commented, mostly correct code; can explain and fix code errors. Users rate it ~8.7/10 for coding help. In competitive coding, GPT-4 is top-tier.

Very capable in coding, especially for quick scripts. Grok often writes code faster and with concise style. Good for technical scripts, algorithm hints, and explaining code. However, not as reliably complete – sometimes misses edge cases or needed features. Fewer guardrails means it might attempt tasks ChatGPT refuses (e.g. certain automations). Overall strong but slightly behind ChatGPT in precision.

Creative Writing

Produces coherent, well-structured creative texts (stories, essays, poems). Adapts tone and characters effectively. Tends toward a formal and verbose style by default, but can mimic styles if prompted. Great for detailed, emotive storytelling (won in head-to-head story tests).

Very creative with humor and casual tone. Writes in an engaging, witty style – ideal for informal content, social media-style discourse, and humorous takes. Can inject pop culture and sarcasm to make writing lively. Sometimes prioritizes entertainment over strictly following instructions, which can be a drawback for serious or structured writing.

Multimodal Abilities

Yes: GPT-4 can interpret images (describe or analyze photos) and generate images via DALL·E 3 integration. It also supports voice input/output (voice conversation available in apps). Image analysis is very advanced (ChatGPT vision model often provides detailed descriptions). Image generation is high-quality (photorealistic, but sometimes over-polished in style).

Yes: Grok can generate images (via its Aurora model) and perform image analysis. It accepts image uploads and provides descriptions or insights (used in “Grok Vision” mode). Its image generation leans more photorealistic and natural (less obviously AI). However, it struggled to follow complex image prompts exactly in tests. Grok also introduced voice support – users can speak to it and hear responses in multiple languages. No video support.

Supported Languages

Highly multilingual out-of-the-box. Fluent in English, with strong capabilities in Spanish, French, German, Chinese, Japanese, and more. Can translate and converse in dozens of languages (trained on diverse Internet text). Handles non-Latin scripts (e.g. Arabic, Chinese) well. Quality is best in English but generally high across major languages.

Initially English-focused, now multilingual after updates. Grok-2 improved support for Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Hindi, Chinese, Italian, French, Japanese, Korean, etc.. In total supports 40+ languages, and Musk claims 100+ with voice. Good informal fluency (especially for languages used on social media), but may be less polished or accurate than ChatGPT for complex prompts in some languages.

Knowledge Cutoff

Training data up to late 2021 (for GPT-4), and up to Sept 2023 for newer GPT-4.5/o models. Without browsing, free ChatGPT’s answers can be outdated on current events. With Browsing/Search enabled, ChatGPT can fetch up-to-date info from the web (with Bing search and citation of sources).

No fixed cutoff – real-time data. Grok is connected to X and web search, so it constantly pulls latest information. It excels at trending topics, live news, and recent facts. However, reliance on real-time data can lead to answers without proper context or verification. It’s important to fact-check breaking news responses.

Integration & Ecosystem

Available on web, mobile (iOS/Android), and via API. Integrates with numerous services (e.g. Microsoft 365 Copilot, third-party apps via API). Has an extensive plugin ecosystem for connecting to external tools. Enterprise integration options with Azure OpenAI etc. Essentially platform-neutral and can be plugged into many workflows.

Tied to X platform, but also on grok.com and mobile apps now. API available (Beta) for developers to use Grok in apps. Lacks a plugin marketplace or official integrations beyond X. Mainly intended as a feature of the X ecosystem (e.g. “Grok” button on tweets, summarizing threads). Not yet used in other mainstream products.

User Experience

Polished chat UI with conversation history, editable messages, and various modes (default, browsing, plugins). Fast, reliable responses. Interface highlights code nicely, supports rich text, images, and voice. Designed for clarity – e.g. includes citations for web info. Highly structured and user-friendly, suitable for work and study.

Fun, conversational UI with a social twist. No persistent multi-chat history initially (each session mostly stands alone, though apps may preserve threads). Emphasizes sharing – users can post answers to X easily. Tone is casual, with the AI often using humor/emojis. UI supports images (generate & view) and voice input. Overall a more playful chat experience, though less formal/organized than ChatGPT’s.

Safety & Moderation

Strict content moderation. Will refuse or safely complete disallowed requests (e.g. no explicit hate, self-harm advice, etc.). Tends to be cautious and neutral, with professional tone. Strong privacy options for users (can opt out of data sharing; enterprise chats not used for training). Good for sensitive contexts – low risk of rogue responses.

Lightly moderated. “Unfiltered” vibe – more willing to tackle edgy or controversial topics head-on. May produce sarcastic or politically incorrect remarks if prompted (within some limits). Less likely to refuse a query; even helped users circumvent ChatGPT’s filters in experiments. This openness can entertain but also carries risk of biased or off-color outputs. Privacy: tied to X account, unclear data usage policies (likely uses interactions to improve model).

Plans & Pricing

Free Tier: Yes (GPT-3.5, unlimited use). Plus $20/mo: GPT-4 access, faster, plugins, images. Teams $25/user/mo: for orgs. Pro $200/mo: unlimited priority access to newest models (o1, o3, GPT-4.5), enhanced features (long context, advanced voice, “Pro” compute mode). Enterprise: custom pricing with SLA, data privacy.

No free general access (aside from limited trials). Requires X Premium+ subscription. Premium+ ~$16/mo initially (gave basic Grok). Now “SuperGrok” $30/mo (or $300/yr) for full feature access. This includes Grok’s AI usage outside X. SuperGrok Heavy $300/mo for top-tier Grok-4 Heavy model (multi-agent reasoning). API pricing is usage-based ($2 per 1M input tokens, etc.). Overall, higher entry cost with Grok – essentially a paid service bundled with X.

Sources: The comparison above incorporates information from the latest public data and hands-on evaluations, including official OpenAI and xAI announcements and independent tests. Each platform is rapidly evolving, so features and performance may continue to change beyond July 2025. This report reflects the current state as documented in available sources.


________

FOLLOW US FOR MORE.


DATA STUDIOS

bottom of page