GitHub Copilot vs OpenAI ChatGPT vs Google Gemini: Full Report and Comparison

Latest Model Names and Versions

OpenAI ChatGPT: As of mid-2025, ChatGPT is powered by OpenAI’s GPT-4 family of models. ChatGPT Plus (the premium tier) gives users access to GPT-4o, an optimized version of GPT-4 with a knowledge cutoff of Oct 2023. Free users primarily get the older GPT-3.5 Turbo model, though by early 2025 OpenAI had begun rolling out GPT-4o even to some free sessions (with limits). OpenAI also introduced GPT-4.1 via its API in April 2025 – featuring improved coding, better instruction following, and up to a 1 million-token context window. (In ChatGPT’s interface, many GPT-4.1 improvements were gradually incorporated into the “latest” GPT-4 model used by Plus users.) There is no publicly released “GPT-5” yet, but GPT-4.1 and experimental models like GPT-4.5 (a research preview) represent incremental upgrades in 2025.

Google Gemini: Google’s AI is codenamed Gemini and comes in multiple versions. The Gemini 1.x series launched in late 2023 and early 2024. Google’s largest model was Gemini 1.0 Ultra, and in February 2024 they announced Gemini 1.5 – specifically releasing Gemini 1.5 Pro, a mid-sized multimodal model comparable in quality to 1.0 Ultra. Gemini 1.5 Pro has a standard 128k token context and introduced an experimental 1 million-token context mode (the longest of any model at the time) for select users. By mid-2025, Google progressed further with the Gemini 2.x series. Notably, Gemini 2.0 Flash (focused on high-speed, real-time tasks) and Gemini 2.5 Pro (the latest advanced model) were made available in preview for certain platforms. Google’s models come in different sizes for different uses – e.g. Gemini Ultra (flagship large model for highly complex tasks), Gemini Pro (for a wide range of tasks, powers the paid “Gemini Advanced” service), and Gemini Nano (a lightweight model for on-device use, such as on Pixel smartphones). In summary, as of mid-2025 the top model is Gemini 2.5 Pro in preview, while the mainstream paid model is Gemini 1.5 Pro, and the free Bard service uses a smaller variant of Gemini (with Gemini Nano for mobile devices).

GitHub Copilot: GitHub Copilot is powered by OpenAI’s models fine-tuned for coding. Initially (in 2021–2022) it used a version of GPT-3 (OpenAI Codex). In 2023–2024, it shifted to GPT-3.5 Turbo-based models. By March 2025, GitHub upgraded Copilot’s code completion engine to GPT-4o, an OpenAI GPT-4-based model optimized for Copilot. This new GPT-4o model provides higher-quality code suggestions with lower latency, and it replaced the older GPT-3.5 Codex model (which was retired in early 2025). For Copilot’s conversational features (Copilot Chat), the default model is OpenAI’s GPT-4.1 as of mid-2025. However, Copilot now supports multiple model choices for users on certain plans. Developers or teams can switch the AI backend: options include OpenAI’s GPT-4.5 (for heavy reasoning), Anthropic’s Claude models, and even Google’s Gemini models in Copilot’s interface. (For example, Copilot Chat offers Gemini 2.0 Flash for vision-and-code tasks, or Gemini 2.5 Pro for complex code and research, alongside OpenAI models.) In summary, the “brain” behind Copilot by mid-2025 is primarily GPT-4/GPT-4.1 tuned for code, but it has become a multi-LLM platform giving access to other top models as well.

Capabilities Comparison

• Coding Assistance and IDE Integration: All three systems can assist with code, but GitHub Copilot is the most specialized for coding. Copilot was “initially designed as an AI pair-programmer” and it excels at inline code completions and suggestions within your editor. It integrates deeply with IDEs like VS Code, Visual Studio, JetBrains IDEs, etc., popping up suggestions as you type and providing a chat that can reference your codebase. Copilot can generate whole functions, explain code, write tests, and even help with bug fixes, all in the context of your project files. However, Copilot is focused exclusively on software development tasks – it’s not a general knowledge chatbot and does not handle non-coding queries in a rich way. By contrast, OpenAI ChatGPT is a general-purpose conversational AI that can write and debug code (often with very high quality, especially using GPT-4), but it’s not integrated into development environments by default. Using ChatGPT for coding usually means copying code back and forth between the chat and your IDE. Developers do leverage ChatGPT for code explanations, pseudocode, or generating snippets in dozens of languages, but it doesn’t offer the real-time, context-aware IDE integration that Copilot does. Google Gemini (Bard) also has coding capabilities – it can generate code, explain algorithms, and was trained on code data as well. In fact, Google’s Gemini Pro model is “good at ... coding” and is closing the gap with GPT-4’s coding prowess. Google has integrated Gemini’s coding help into some of its products (for example, you can ask the Bard chatbot to write code, or use AI features in Google Colab notebooks). That said, Gemini’s coding assistance is delivered through the chat interface or Google’s cloud tools rather than via direct IDE plugins. It’s less seamlessly integrated for developers compared to Copilot, which lives inside your editor. In short, Copilot is currently the go-to for an “in-IDE” coding partner experience, whereas ChatGPT and Gemini are more general assistants that can also produce code (great for algorithmic help or quick scripts) but require the developer to integrate the results manually into their workflow.

• General-Purpose Conversational Abilities: ChatGPT is known for its broad conversational intelligence. It can engage in Q&A across countless domains, write essays or emails, brainstorm creative ideas, tutor you in math or languages, and more. ChatGPT is often described as the versatile “all-round” AI assistant – it adapts to the user’s prompts and can handle open-ended, dynamic conversations with a high degree of fluency. Google Gemini (via the Bard interface or Google’s apps) is likewise a conversational AI, used in a similar chat format. By early 2025, Gemini and ChatGPT have “become increasingly similar” in their offerings – both provide a free chatbot service, a similarly priced subscription for more advanced features, and analogous use cases. However, there are some nuances. Gemini (especially in Gemini Advanced, the paid version) tends to emphasize factual and safe responses; Google has put a strong focus on grounded, “precise, verifiable responses” with Gemini, and heavy content safeguards for safe interactions. Users often find Gemini’s style “more professional, thorough and detailed”, whereas ChatGPT’s style can be a bit more conversational or creatively flexible. On the other hand, ChatGPT is often praised for being highly dynamic and adaptable in dialogue – it can inject personality (within limits) and follow the user’s lead in free-form discussions more readily, where Gemini sometimes keeps a tighter focus on the factual query at hand. Another difference is real-time knowledge (discussed more under Research below): Gemini is connected to Google’s live search results, so in conversation it can incorporate up-to-date information and even cite sources for facts. ChatGPT, by default, relies on its training data (which has a cutoff, e.g. GPT-4’s knowledge goes up to 2023) and does not automatically fetch new information from the web unless you enable plug-ins or a browsing mode. Because of this, Gemini may feel more like it’s “answering your question directly with current info,” whereas ChatGPT sometimes answers from its memory and may occasionally say it doesn’t have recent data. GitHub Copilot, in contrast, has limited conversational scope. Copilot’s chat (available in IDEs) can answer questions, but these are usually about coding problems or documentation. It’s not designed for general knowledge or casual conversation – for example, Copilot wouldn’t be the tool to ask for a summary of a news article or for writing a poem. It’s tuned to respond to programming-related queries (like “How do I center a div in CSS?” or “Explain this error message”) with concise, helpful answers, often even inserting relevant code. In summary, ChatGPT and Gemini are general conversational AIs suited for a wide array of topics, while *Copilot’s “conversation” is narrow, tailored to development assistance (and it shines in that domain rather than small talk).

• Multimodal Capabilities (Images, Voice, etc.): One of the big differentiators by 2025 is multimodality – the ability to accept or generate non-text inputs/outputs. Google’s Gemini is designed as a multimodal model from the ground up: it can understand and generate text of course, but also “understands audio, video, computer code and text”. In Google Bard (Gemini), you can upload images for the AI to analyze, and Google has demonstrated Gemini handling voice input and even video interpretation. In fact, Google released dedicated tools Veo and Imagen 3 for Gemini to generate images and videos, and later updated them for improved quality. This means Gemini can do things like analyze an image you provide (e.g. “What is in this photo?”) or generate a diagram. It can also take voice input and respond via voice (especially in mobile apps or devices where Google Assistant integration is present). ChatGPT (with GPT-4) became partially multimodal as well. As of late 2023, OpenAI enabled image understanding in ChatGPT: you can attach an image and ask questions about it (for example, asking ChatGPT to interpret a chart or read text from a photo). ChatGPT can describe images and even do rudimentary analysis of what it “sees.” On the output side, ChatGPT integrated OpenAI’s DALL·E 3 model to allow text-to-image generation within ChatGPT Plus. So you can ask ChatGPT to create an image (e.g. “Generate an illustration of a medieval city”) and it will produce an image via DALL·E. Additionally, ChatGPT has voice capabilities: in the official mobile apps (iOS/Android), ChatGPT offers a voice conversation mode where you can speak to it and it will respond with synthesized speech. It provides a selection of AI-generated voices and uses speech recognition for input. These features make ChatGPT multimodal in input/output, though not quite to the extent of Gemini’s full spectrum (ChatGPT isn’t analyzing videos, for instance). GitHub Copilot in its core form does not accept image or audio inputs – it’s primarily text (code) in and text out. However, because Copilot can interface with models like Gemini via its multi-model support, Copilot users could leverage some multimodal features. For example, when using Gemini 2.0 Flash model within Copilot Chat, one can actually ask it to analyze an image (like a UI screenshot) since that model supports image inputs. But with Copilot’s default OpenAI models, you’re limited to text. Copilot did introduce a voice-based interaction in VS Code (as part of “Copilot X”), allowing developers to talk to Copilot (speech-to-text for hands-free coding assistance), but this is more of a convenience feature rather than the AI’s inherent multimodal understanding – the voice input is simply transcribed to text for Copilot to process. In summary, Gemini currently offers the broadest multimodal abilities (text, images, audio, some video) natively, ChatGPT also became multimodal (images and voice) for Plus users, while Copilot remains focused on text (code) – except when explicitly using a multimodal model through it.

• Research and Summarization Proficiency: For tasks like researching information, summarizing documents, or retrieving facts, a key difference is the access to information. Google Gemini (Bard) has an advantage in that it is connected to Google Search by default. It can pull in real-time information from the web and is tuned to select reliable sources on the fly. This means if you ask Gemini about a current event or to summarize the “latest research on a topic,” it can actually search the internet and give you an answer with citations. This real-time retrieval makes Gemini very powerful for up-to-date research and summarization of current information. ChatGPT does not have built-in web access in its default mode (as of mid-2025). Its knowledge is frozen at its training cutoff (for GPT-4 that is late 2023). However, ChatGPT has other strengths for research: it’s very good at summarizing or analyzing documents that you provide to it. With a large context window (GPT-4 offers up to 25k tokens for Plus, and even larger via API), you can paste in a long article or upload a PDF, and ChatGPT will produce a detailed summary or answer questions about it. In fact, ChatGPT Plus includes an “Advanced Data Analysis” tool (formerly Code Interpreter) which allows you to upload various file types (PDFs, CSVs, etc.) and have the AI analyze or summarize them. One user noted that ChatGPT was even able to interpret a blood test report PDF and give advice – something the other AIs couldn’t do at the time. So for personal research on provided data, ChatGPT is excellent. It can also write thorough summaries of broad knowledge it has (e.g. summarizing the causes of World War I or a famous novel) with very coherent results. For live info or citations, ChatGPT is catching up via plug-ins: ChatGPT Plus users can enable a Browser plug-in or use third-party plug-ins to fetch information from the web, but these are extra steps and not always as seamless as Bard’s built-in search. Copilot is not intended for general research or lengthy text summarization outside code. Its “summarization” features are more code-centric – for example, Copilot can generate a summary of a code diff or a GitHub pull request to help developers understand changes. It can also explain code in natural language. But you wouldn’t use Copilot to summarize a PDF report or do library research on a topic – that’s outside its scope. In use, Gemini might be the best for factual research queries (thanks to search grounding) and for summarizing content found online (with sources), ChatGPT is great for analytical or offline summarization (digesting large user-provided texts, or synthesizing knowledge from its training data), and Copilot is limited to summarizing programming-related content (like code). All three can be used for knowledge queries, but with ChatGPT and Gemini you’d ask, say, “Summarize this article” or “Explain quantum computing”, whereas with Copilot you’d stick to “Summarize what this function does.”

Performance Benchmarks

Overall performance: All these AI systems are built on advanced large language models, so they perform at a high level on standard benchmarks. However, there are some measurable differences in specific areas. OpenAI’s GPT-4 (which powers ChatGPT) has been a leader in many benchmarks, but Google’s Gemini is rapidly closing the gap and even surpassing in certain tests as of 2025. For example, on a broad knowledge benchmark like MMLU (Measuring Massive Multitask Knowledge) – which tests accuracy across 57 academic subjects – GPT-4 scored about 88.7% (5-shot) whereas Google’s Gemini 1.5 Pro scored around 81.9%. This indicates GPT-4 had an edge in diversified knowledge and reasoning. In coding benchmarks, OpenAI’s models also traditionally led: an internal “Natural2Code” Python coding challenge saw GPT-4 (ChatGPT-4o) at 90.2% vs Gemini 1.5 Pro at 82.6%. That said, by mid-2025 newer versions like Gemini 2 have essentially caught up. Reports suggest Gemini Ultra achieves roughly ~85% on the HumanEval coding test, which is on par with or slightly higher than GPT-4’s performance (~80% on HumanEval). In other words, for code generation tasks, the top models from OpenAI and Google are now in the same league (within a few percentage points of each other in pass rates). Each may excel slightly in different programming challenges, but both are extremely capable (far above earlier code models like Codex or GPT-3.5).

Looking at other benchmarks: on math and logical reasoning challenges (like GSM8K, a grade-school math word problem set), Anthropic’s Claude has been known to do very well (around 88% on GSM8K), but GPT-4 and Gemini are not far behind. For example, on an advanced math test (Challenging Math Problems benchmark), GPT-4o scored 76.6% vs Gemini 1.5’s 67.7% – again showing a gap in favor of GPT-4, but this may narrow with newer Gemini versions. In multimodal or vision-related benchmarks, Gemini had an advantage earlier: in a visual reasoning test (MathVista, involving interpreting diagrams), Gemini 1.5 got 52.1% vs GPT-4o’s 60.3% (GPT-4 was better in that case), but for speech recognition (FLEURS benchmark), Gemini performed slightly better (6.6 vs 5.4 – where higher indicates better multilingual speech understanding). One notable long-context benchmark is Needle in a Haystack (NIAH), where a tiny fact must be found in a huge text – Google reported Gemini 1.5 Pro could find the info 99% of the time at 1M token context, showcasing its strength in extended context reasoning. OpenAI’s newer GPT-4.1 also introduced a 1M token context and improved long document comprehension, so both are pushing the frontier there.

In summary, ChatGPT (GPT-4) still slightly leads in many traditional NLP benchmarks (knowledge quizzes, reading comprehension, etc.), often regarded as having a small advantage in complex reasoning. Google Gemini is extremely close and sometimes ahead in multimodal understanding and real-time tasks (and with each update – e.g. Gemini 2 – it has improved further). Notably, one source’s head-to-head tests found “Gemini 2.0 Flash outperforms GPT-4o in every metric except coding”, where it was just a hair behind. And for the latest coding benchmarks, Gemini 2.5 Ultra and GPT-4 are roughly tied at state-of-the-art accuracy. All three platforms perform at a level far above older models, so for most practical purposes they all deliver high-quality results; the differences show up in edge cases or specialized exams. We can confidently say GitHub Copilot (with GPT-4) and ChatGPT excel at coding tasks (often verified by HumanEval and other coding tests), ChatGPT (GPT-4) shines in broad knowledge and language understanding (e.g. ~86% on MMLU which is near the top), and Gemini matches top-tier performance while further providing robust multimodal and long-context prowess.

(Benchmark references: GPT-4 vs Gemini 1.5 – MMLU, coding, math from; GPT-4.1 improvements from OpenAI; Summary of various tests from datastudios.)

User Experience and Interface

Despite all being AI assistants, the user experience (UX) of GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT, and Gemini can feel quite different:

• ChatGPT’s Interface: ChatGPT is accessed via a chat web interface (or official mobile app) provided by OpenAI. The UI is straightforward – a single chat thread where the user types prompts at the bottom and the AI’s responses appear as dialog bubbles. It keeps a history of the conversation in a sidebar (previous chats are saved and can be revisited), allowing a back-and-forth dialogue. By design, ChatGPT’s interface is text-only in the sense that it outputs just text (plus any ASCII tables or code blocks). It does not embed images, charts, or hyperlinks in its answers (even if it describes an image, it will just talk about it, not display it). This text-centric approach keeps the interface clean, though somewhat limits the presentation of information (no inline graphs or clickable references in answers – citations are just text you’d copy-paste to a browser if needed). ChatGPT also doesn’t have a “search the web” button in its default UI, which means it won’t show live web results within the interface (unless you use the browser plugin). User settings in ChatGPT include the ability to toggle between models (e.g. GPT-3.5 or GPT-4 for Plus users), enable beta features like browsing or plug-ins, and set Custom Instructions (a persistent profile or system message that influences responses across sessions). The mobile apps for ChatGPT (iOS/Android) mirror the web UX, with the addition of voice input/output as mentioned. Overall the chat flow is linear: you ask a question, get an answer, and you can follow up. There is no GUI menu of tools or multi-modal widgets in the conversation – just the text exchange (plugins operate somewhat behind the scenes). Many users appreciate ChatGPT’s UI for its simplicity and focus, but it lacks some of the more “interactive” UI elements that, say, Google’s interface provides.

• Google Gemini’s Interface (Bard and Integrations): Google’s Gemini AI is accessible through multiple surfaces, primarily Google Bard (bard.google.com) and various Google products. The Bard web interface is also a chat-based UI, similar in basic layout to ChatGPT (a text box to enter prompts and a dialogue of responses). However, Bard’s interface includes some distinctive elements. For one, Bard/Gemini often provides suggested follow-up questions or actions. After it answers, you might see buttons for things like “Google it” (to confirm sources) or suggestions like “Explain in simpler terms” to refine the output. It was noted that Gemini’s interface shows “loads of options and big answers… It’s giving direct answers and loads of options within a variety of categories to select from”, even asking if you want a refined answer. This indicates a design where the AI not only responds but proactively helps the user explore further – potentially very friendly for learning. Visually, Bard uses formatting (like bold text for emphasis) and a larger font, which one user found noticeable. Another UI feature: Gemini can display images in-line when relevant. If you ask Gemini (Bard) something that needs to show an image (e.g. “What does the Eiffel Tower look like right now?”), it may actually show an image along with text. It also can accept image uploads in the prompt (there’s an “upload image” button), providing a more multimodal UI. Moreover, Google has integrated Gemini across its ecosystem: in Google Search, for example, certain queries trigger an AI summary at the top of results (with the label “Powered by Google AI – Gemini”) which provides a conversational answer with cited web links. In Google Docs and Gmail (part of Google Workspace), the Gemini-powered assistant (formerly “Duet AI”, now sometimes called Gemini for Workspace) appears as a side panel that can help draft content or summarize emails. This means the UI can vary: sometimes it’s a sidebar in an existing app, other times it’s the dedicated Bard chat window. On mobile, Gemini is available through the Google app (on iOS) or the dedicated Bard mobile site/app on Android, and even via voice through Google Assistant in some cases. In fact, Pixel 8 phones have on-device Gemini Nano that powers features like enhanced Assistant voice replies and image generation. Overall, Gemini’s user experience is tightly woven into Google’s services – which is great if you are an avid Google user, as it feels like the AI is just another feature of the apps you already use (Search, Docs, etc.). It’s less of a stand-alone chat app (though Bard is that) and more of an integrated assistant across platforms. One thing to note: because of this integration, Google’s approach to data and privacy may differ – enterprise users might prefer that Gemini’s Workspace integration doesn’t use their content to train models, etc., similar to how ChatGPT Enterprise handles data. Both interfaces are evolving, but by mid-2025 ChatGPT and Gemini’s UIs have converged in offering a simple chat with optional voice and image inputs, with Gemini providing a bit more native UI richness (like follow-up suggestions and integrated search results) and ChatGPT focusing on a minimalist, standalone chat experience.

• GitHub Copilot’s Interface: Copilot’s interface is quite different because it’s not a website or a general chat app – it lives inside development tools. The primary ways you “see” Copilot are: inline code completions and a Copilot chat panel in your IDE. For example, in VS Code, as you write code, Copilot will gray-out suggestions inline (like an autocomplete that can span multiple lines). You can accept with a tab or cycle through suggestions. This is a subtle, context-based UI – no need to explicitly invoke it beyond typing. Then there’s Copilot Chat, which can be opened as a sidebar in VS Code or Visual Studio. This looks somewhat like a typical chat window, but it’s specialized: you might ask, “Hey, how do I refactor this code?” or “What does this error mean?” and Copilot will answer, possibly with code examples. The chat is aware of the open project/files – you can highlight a block of code and ask Copilot to explain it, and it knows that context. Copilot also manifests in other surfaces for developers: for instance, on GitHub’s website, when opening a Pull Request, Copilot can generate a Pull Request description automatically by summarizing code changes; in the CLI (command line interface), there’s a Copilot CLI tool that can assist with shell commands; and in GitHub’s mobile app, Copilot chat can answer questions about a repository. In all these cases, the UI is minimalist and task-specific. There’s no flashy formatting or images – Copilot might output markdown in chat (which can format code nicely in an IDE chat window), but mostly it’s just plain text or code. Users have noted some UX quirks, like Copilot occasionally prompting to sign in again in the IDE, but overall it’s designed to blend into the developer’s workflow. You don’t have a traditional “history” of chats saved (at least not long-term), since each query is often tied to the code context at that moment. Settings for Copilot are usually found in the IDE extension settings – you can choose things like enabling/disabling inline suggestions, which model to use (if on a plan that supports multiple models), and some filters (like preventing it from suggesting insecure code). Copilot doesn’t have a “mobile app” or web UI of its own for chatting (there is a web-based editor on GitHub Codespaces where Copilot works, but it’s basically VS Code in the browser). So, the Copilot UX is very much “invisible until you need it” – it augments existing developer UIs rather than providing a standalone interface. This is ideal for developers, but not relevant for non-coding scenarios.

  
  

  This is it: ChatGPT offers a standalone, generic chat interface accessible on web and mobile, with a focus on simplicity and user-controlled conversation threads. Google’s Gemini (Bard) offers a similar chat interface but also deep integration into everyday apps, plus richer UI elements like images and suggested refinements. GitHub Copilot has no dedicated “app” for general use – its interface is embedded in developer tools, emphasizing a seamless coding experience over a traditional chat UI.

Integrations and Ecosystem

Each of these AI solutions exists within a broader ecosystem of products and integrations:

• GitHub Copilot Integrations: Copilot is tightly integrated with development platforms. Officially, it supports integration with IDE/editor plugins for VS Code, Visual Studio, Neovim, JetBrains IDEs (like IntelliJ, PyCharm), and others. This means if you’re coding in those environments, Copilot is “right there,” offering suggestions or accessible via a shortcut. It also integrates with GitHub itself – features like Copilot for Pull Requests can automatically write descriptions or answer questions in GitHub’s web UI when reviewing code changes. Another integration is Copilot CLI, which allows using natural language in the command line to get command suggestions. Additionally, Microsoft has begun integrating the Copilot concept across its ecosystem: for example, Azure DevOps has Copilot-like assistance, and Windows Terminal offers Copilot to explain command outputs. It’s worth noting Microsoft has used the “Copilot” name for various products (e.g. Microsoft 365 Copilot for Office apps, Salesforce’s AI Copilot, etc.), but GitHub Copilot is specifically the developer-focused tool (though these share underlying tech). There isn’t a public API to directly use Copilot outside these developer tools – instead, developers would use OpenAI’s API if they want GPT-4 in their own app. Copilot’s value is primarily in its native ecosystem integration with coding workflows. In terms of third-party platform support, Copilot’s reach is expanding (e.g., support in GitHub Codespaces for cloud IDE, and GitHub Mobile as mentioned). Copilot does not have “plugins” like ChatGPT does; it’s more of a service plugin itself for IDEs. However, Copilot can be extended via the Copilot SDK for developers to build custom Copilot Extensions or agents within their tools, indicating an ecosystem approach where Copilot’s AI capabilities can be embedded into other developer experiences.

• OpenAI ChatGPT Integrations: ChatGPT, being a general AI service, has spawned a rich ecosystem of integrations and plugins. OpenAI released a ChatGPT API (and GPT-4 API) that allows developers to integrate ChatGPT’s capabilities into their own applications. This API has been widely adopted – for example, many productivity apps (notion, Zapier, etc.) have built-in ChatGPT-powered features. There’s also a direct Slack integration (an official ChatGPT app for Slack) that allows using ChatGPT inside Slack channels for drafting responses or summarizing threads. Moreover, OpenAI introduced a Plugin system for ChatGPT in 2023: third-party plugins enable ChatGPT to interact with external services (for instance, there are plugins to pull in real-time stock data, to interface with Wikipedia, to execute code, etc.). This effectively lets ChatGPT reach beyond its base training by hooking into other APIs. The plugin ecosystem by 2025 is quite large, giving ChatGPT a swath of extended capabilities (travel planning via Kayak plugin, grocery ordering via Instacart plugin, and so on). In terms of platform integration, because ChatGPT is web-based and via API, it’s a bit siloed from other big platforms like Microsoft or Google – however, thanks to OpenAI’s partnership with Microsoft, we see GPT-4 integrated in Microsoft’s products as well (for example, Bing Chat is powered by GPT-4 and available in Skype, Edge browser sidebar, and Windows 11’s “Copilot” panel; and Microsoft 365 Copilot uses GPT-4 within Word, Excel, Outlook, etc.). One could say ChatGPT’s model is at the heart of many MS ecosystem features, even if the ChatGPT app itself isn’t embedded there. On the other hand, ChatGPT is not natively integrated into Google’s products (for obvious reasons, as Google pushes Gemini/Bard for that). Another integration aspect: ChatGPT’s community has produced browser extensions (like a Chrome extension to use ChatGPT on any webpage), and tools like Obsidian or VS Code have unofficial plugins to query ChatGPT from those environments. So, while ChatGPT isn’t an “official part” of those apps, the API allows creative integrations everywhere. To sum up, ChatGPT’s ecosystem is characterized by broad third-party integration via its API and plugin architecture, making it a versatile component that developers can embed in their own software. It also has a thriving community building wrappers and enhancements.

• Google Gemini Integrations: Google has strategically integrated Gemini across its Google Workspace and Search products. In Search, as mentioned, Google’s Search Generative Experience uses Gemini to provide AI summaries with citations for search queries. In Workspace (Google Docs, Sheets, Gmail, Slides, Meet), the feature known as “Duet AI” was rebranded under the Gemini umbrella in 2024. This means you can be in Google Docs and use an AI helper to draft content or brainstorm, or in Gmail to refine an email – those assistants are powered by Gemini models and are integrated as sidebars or assistive menus. For example, in Google Sheets, you can ask the AI to create a formula in plain English. Google has essentially made Gemini the AI layer of all its services, analogous to how Microsoft is integrating OpenAI’s models into Office. On the developer side, Google offers Gemini through Google Cloud’s Vertex AI and AI Studio. Developers and enterprises can access Gemini models via API (for instance, using Vertex AI’s Model Garden where Gemini models like “Gemini 1.5 Pro” are available). This allows companies to build their own apps on top of Gemini, similar to OpenAI’s API. Google’s ecosystem advantage is also on Android – with Gemini Nano running on device for Pixel, we see some AI features (like enhanced voice typing, image generation in the Magic Editor, etc.) working offline or with low latency. Furthermore, Gemini is part of Google Assistant’s evolution: Google has teased that Assistant will become more Bard/Gemini-powered for more conversational help. As for third-party integrations, Google hasn’t (as of mid-2025) offered a plugin framework exactly like ChatGPT’s, but they did allow some extensions in Bard (for instance, Bard can integrate with Google Maps, YouTube, etc., to fetch info – being Google’s own services). It can also export responses to Google Docs or Gmail directly (a nice ecosystem tie-in). One can expect that Google’s AI will be embedded in Android apps, Chrome, and other surfaces as time goes on. In summary, Google’s Gemini is integrated primarily within Google’s own ecosystem – it enhances Google’s apps (Search, Workspace, Android) and is offered as a service on Google Cloud for external developers. If you use Google’s products, Gemini is a readily available helper; if you want to use it in a custom app, Google provides the API through their cloud platform (with pricing comparable to OpenAI’s token-based pricing for GPT models).

Pricing

The cost of using these AI tools can vary significantly depending on free vs paid tiers and enterprise offerings:

• ChatGPT: OpenAI provides ChatGPT with both a free tier and paid subscriptions. The Free version of ChatGPT allows anyone to register and chat with the AI (on web or mobile). The free tier historically used the GPT-3.5 model for responses. By 2025, OpenAI had also made their upgraded GPT-4 model (GPT-4o) available to free users in a limited capacity – but with some restrictions like slower response speed or a cap on messages per day. Generally, free ChatGPT is sufficient for casual use, but it may be rate-limited during peak times and does not offer advanced features. The ChatGPT Plus subscription costs $20 per month and unlocks full access to the more powerful GPT-4 model (GPT-4o) without heavy usage limits. Plus users get faster responses, priority access (no blackout times even when demand is high), and access to beta features: for example, Plus includes the Advanced Data Analysis tool, the ability to use Plugins, and the option to have GPT-4 vision (image understanding) and DALL-E 3 for image generation. Essentially, $20/mo gives individual users the “pro” version of ChatGPT. For businesses, OpenAI has ChatGPT Team and ChatGPT Enterprise plans. ChatGPT Team is priced around $25 per user per month (billed annually). It includes all Plus features, but with benefits tailored to teams: shared chat folders, higher message limits, and an admin console to manage multiple users. ChatGPT Enterprise is a custom-priced offering for organizations, providing unlimited GPT-4 access at max speed, longer context windows (up to 32k tokens by default), enterprise-grade security (data encryption, no training on your data), and admin analytics. OpenAI doesn’t publicly list the Enterprise price (it depends on size and usage), but it’s targeted at larger companies (often replacing per-user pricing with a usage-based or negotiated contract). Additionally, both Plus and Enterprise users in 2025 have access to new model versions as they come (for example, if GPT-4.1 gets into ChatGPT, they get it). It’s also worth noting API pricing: if a developer uses the OpenAI API (GPT-4, GPT-3.5 models) to build an app, they pay per token. For instance, GPT-4 (8k context) was around $0.03 per 1K tokens input, $0.06 per 1K output as of 2023; those prices have been evolving (OpenAI tends to reduce prices or release cheaper variants like GPT-4 Turbo). OpenAI did mention in 2025 a plan to lower costs with GPT-4.1, which offers “exceptional performance at a lower cost”, making high-end models more affordable for API users. But for end users, the simple view is: Free or $20/mo for most.

• GitHub Copilot: Copilot is a paid service for most users, though it has some free avenues. For individual developers, GitHub Copilot is priced at $10 per month (or $100 per year) for a single user. This subscription (sometimes called Copilot Pro) gives you unlimited usage in supported IDEs, with access to all the latest model improvements. There is no completely free unlimited tier for Copilot’s full functionality, but GitHub offers Copilot free to certain groups: students, teachers, and maintainers of popular open-source projects can get Copilot at no charge (as part of GitHub’s education and open-source support programs). For companies, there’s Copilot for Business/Enterprise, which was introduced later. Copilot for Business includes features like organization-wide policy controls, license management, and possibly on-premises options. Its price was initially the same $19 per user per month that Microsoft 365 Copilot charges, but GitHub actually set it at $19 USD per user/month for business accounts when launched in 2023. (Recently, Microsoft/GitHub also started referring to “Copilot Pro” and higher tiers, which might include increased usage limits or model choices at higher price, but as of mid-2024, $10 individual and $19 business were the key price points.) By mid-2025, GitHub had also introduced a Copilot trial/free mode with limited capabilities – e.g., some VS Code versions included a “Copilot for VS Code” free built-in that gave a few suggestions per day or a reduced model (Copilot “GPT-4o mini”) for non-subscribers. In eWEEK’s comparison, they noted the free version limit for Copilot as something like “500 interactions” or a downgrade to a smaller model after a certain number of uses. This implies that while Copilot might let you try it or use it lightly for free (especially if you have a GitHub account), heavy users will need the subscription. There aren’t multiple tiers of Copilot beyond individual vs enterprise – it’s pretty straightforward. To put in perspective, Copilot’s $10/mo can be seen as quite affordable for the productivity boost (as some have noted, “Copilot’s $10/month subscription is a steal for developers”). Also, Copilot doesn’t meter by tokens; it’s unlimited usage but subject to fair-use limits and the practical speed limits of suggestions. In summary, Copilot pricing: ~$0 for verified students and OSS maintainers, $10/mo for most individual devs, and $19/mo per user for businesses, with volume discounts possibly for large enterprises.

• Google Gemini (Bard) Pricing: Google has taken a somewhat different approach by bundling their advanced AI access with existing products. The base Google Bard chatbot is free for everyone with a Google account. You can go to bard.google.com and use the AI without charge or specific limits, similar to free ChatGPT. (There may be usage limits such as a certain number of prompts per hour or per 8-hour window, and indeed eWeek mentioned a limit: free Gemini is limited to 500 interactions across Google ecosystem, refreshing every 5 hours. In practice, that’s quite generous for normal use). Google, however, introduced a premium tier for its AI as part of Google One subscriptions. Specifically, the Google One “Premium” Plan (2 TB) at $19.99 per month includes Gemini Advanced access. This plan, aside from giving cloud storage, grants the user the benefits of Gemini’s most powerful model (Gemini 1.5 Pro, and presumably upgrades as they come). Subscribers get Gemini Pro 1.5 with an expanded context window – TechTarget notes 2 million tokens context for those users (which might refer to the experimental long context mode). Essentially, paying for Google One Premium turns on “Bard Advanced” which uses the larger, faster Gemini model and lifts some usage caps. For enterprise or developers, Google offers Vertex AI pricing for the Gemini API. Those are usage-based. While not all details are public, one source indicated a starting price around $1.25 per million input tokens for Gemini via API. For instance, if you’re a developer using Gemini 1.5 via the cloud API, you might pay per 1000 tokens processed (similar to OpenAI’s scheme). Google has various sizes (Nano, Pro, Ultra) which likely have different pricing. Also, note that if you’re a Google Workspace enterprise customer, the AI features (now called “Gemini for Workspace”) might be an add-on similar to Microsoft’s – at Google I/O 2023 they said Duet AI (now Gemini) in Workspace would be available for a fee (some reports said $30/user/month, akin to MS Copilot). By 2025 Google might bundle it in certain enterprise tiers or charge separately. So far, publicly, the known consumer-facing price is the $19.99/mo via Google One Premium. Everything else on the consumer side is free. So a regular user can use free Bard (with some limitations on speed and model size), or pay ~$20 to get the top model with priority. One more twist: Pixel phone users got Bard’s advanced features early and perhaps as a value-add (Pixel 8 Pro buyers were given a free trial of Bard’s Premium AI for some months). It’s a moving target, but summarizing: Gemini pricing – Free for base service (Bard), and $19.99/month (via Google One) for “Gemini Advanced” (access to Gemini Pro models and larger context). Developers can access Gemini via Google Cloud with pay-as-you-go pricing roughly in line with other LLM APIs.

To compare at a high level:

Service	Free Tier	Paid Individual	Business/Enterprise
OpenAI ChatGPT	Yes – free web/app access (uses GPT-3.5, limited GPT-4).	ChatGPT Plus – $20/month for GPT-4 access, faster responses, plugins, etc..	ChatGPT Team – $25/user/mo (annual) for teams; Enterprise – custom pricing (unlimited GPT-4, private instance).
GitHub Copilot	No general free tier (free for students & OSS maintainers; also short free trials).	Copilot for Individuals – $10/month or $100/year for unlimited usage in IDE.	Copilot for Business – ~$19/user/month with admin controls and policy features (integrates with enterprise GitHub).
Google Gemini (Bard)	Yes – Bard is free with a Google account (uses a modest model, limited interactions).	Gemini Advanced – $19.99/month (via Google One Premium) for Gemini Pro 1.5, larger context, priority access.	Duet AI / Gemini in Workspace – enterprise add-on (pricing ~ $30/user/mo for business productivity features, similar to MS Copilot). Cloud API: usage-based (e.g. ~$1.25 per million tokens input) for custom applications.

(Sources: Pricing details from TechTarget, eWeek, and data studios report.)

All three providers continue to adjust pricing and tiers, especially as new models roll out, but the above gives a snapshot as of mid-2025. Notably, the costs are in a similar ballpark for premium individual access (~$20/month) for ChatGPT Plus and Google’s Gemini via Google One, while Copilot is half that price for individuals ($10). Enterprise offerings for ChatGPT and Gemini’s productivity integrations tend to align around $25–30/user for business value-added features, reflecting how these companies position their AI for professional use.

Target Audiences and Use Cases

Each AI platform has a different core audience and set of use cases it serves best:

• GitHub Copilot – for Developers and Software Teams: Copilot’s target users are programmers – from students learning to code, to professional developers aiming to boost productivity. It’s best suited for those who spend a lot of time in code editors and want an AI “pair programmer.” If you’re working on software development, Copilot can help write boilerplate code, suggest implementations, generate unit tests, and answer programming queries. It supports many languages (JavaScript, Python, Java, C#, C++, etc.) and is particularly helpful in large codebases or unfamiliar frameworks by providing recommendations based on common patterns. Copilot is also valuable for development teams in enterprise settings, as it can improve code consistency and act as a coding assistant for each developer (especially now with business features like policy controls to avoid insecure code). However, Copilot is not aimed at non-developers; outside of coding, it has little utility. So the ideal audience is anyone who writes code – e.g., a web developer can use it to autocomplete HTML/JS, a data scientist can have it write Python pandas code, a student can get help on a coding assignment (ethically, one hopes). In terms of skill level, Copilot can help newbies by suggesting correct syntax and help experts by taking care of repetitive tasks. It’s also increasingly used in DevOps and IT (writing configuration files, shell scripts) through its integration in those environments. Companies adopting Copilot have reported faster development cycles (some studies claim up to 55% faster coding for certain tasks with Copilot’s help). In sum, Copilot is best for developers seeking an AI assistant within their coding workflow, and it’s less useful for anyone outside that domain.

• OpenAI ChatGPT – for General Users, Creatives, Learners, and as a Multi-purpose Assistant: ChatGPT has a very broad target audience because of its generalist nature. It’s essentially for anyone who could use a writing assistant or information source. Some key user groups and use cases include: Students and Educators – using ChatGPT to explain complex concepts, get tutoring help, or draft essays (with caution to avoid plagiarism). Writers and Content Creators – leveraging it to brainstorm ideas, generate drafts of blog posts, marketing copy, social media content, or even poetry and fiction. Professionals – for example, lawyers might use it to summarize legal documents or draft emails, marketers to create campaign slogans, customer support agents to get suggestions for responding to inquiries, etc. Researchers – ChatGPT can be used to summarize articles, generate literature reviews or just act as a sounding board for understanding material (though it should be double-checked for accuracy). Everyday Individuals – for tasks like composing a polite email, creating a travel itinerary, getting recipe ideas, or just having an interesting conversation, ChatGPT is often the go-to AI. It’s known for its versatility: one moment it’s helping you debug code, the next it’s role-playing a historical figure for a creative project. With the introduction of plugins and tools, power users can use ChatGPT as a hub for doing things like analyzing data (with the Code Interpreter), searching the web, or controlling smart home devices. Also, ChatGPT’s accessible interface and conversational style make it popular among less tech-savvy users as well – you don’t need to know any special syntax, you just talk to it. That said, ChatGPT (especially the free version) might not be the best for those who specifically need up-to-the-minute information or highly specialized domain knowledge (where a tool like WolframAlpha or a domain-specific model might serve better). But as a general AI assistant, ChatGPT’s use cases span personal, educational, and professional domains widely. Many businesses are also adopting ChatGPT or its underlying models for customer service chatbots, content generation, or as part of their workflows (via the API).

• Google Gemini – for Web Users, Knowledge Seekers, and Google Ecosystem Users: Google’s Gemini (via Bard and integrated services) is positioned for users who want an AI assistant embedded in their everyday Google experience. A prime audience is the general public using Google Search – instead of just links, they get AI summaries, which benefits anyone looking for quick answers or synthesis of information. Researchers and students might prefer Gemini for research-oriented tasks because of its live search integration; for example, if you need the latest information or want sources cited (e.g., “What are the newest findings in renewable energy?”), Gemini will fetch current info and present it with references. People in the Google Workspace ecosystem (business users or students using Docs/Sheets) are also a key audience: Gemini acts as a writing aide in Docs, a data analyst in Sheets (auto-generating formulas or summaries), and an email draft assistant in Gmail. This makes it ideal for knowledge workers who spend time on documentation, reporting, or communication – it can automate drafting and allow these users to refine rather than start from scratch. Additionally, creative users can benefit: Gemini’s multimodal abilities mean someone could use it to generate images (for a design moodboard, for instance) or even small bits of music or code. Kids or curious learners have been highlighted as well – one commentator noted “Gemini would be great for kids, researchers, and people who want to know in depth”, due to its detailed answers and educational style. Families might use it via Google Assistant for learning or fun facts. With the advent of Gemini Nano on devices, mobile users (especially Pixel phone owners) are a target – they get on-device AI for things like advanced photography editing, real-time translation, etc. Enterprises that rely on Google Cloud might choose Gemini to build domain-specific chatbots or assistants (like a company internal assistant that can handle multimodal data). In comparison to ChatGPT, one could say Gemini (Bard) is targeted at users who value integrated, factual, and multimodal assistance – those who might ask a question and expect the AI to not only answer but also maybe show an image or double-check facts online. It’s also naturally the choice for anyone who is already a Google user and wants AI help without switching to a different platform.

To boil it down: Copilot is best for developers; ChatGPT is for everyone from writers to coders to professionals who needs a versatile conversational AI; Gemini (Bard) is great for general users (and students/professionals) who want an AI that’s strongly integrated with web search and the Google environment, including the ability to handle images/voice. Enterprises might choose ChatGPT or Gemini depending on ecosystem alignment – e.g., a Microsoft-centric company might lean ChatGPT (or Azure OpenAI services), while a Google-centric company might opt for Gemini in Google Cloud. Each platform has its unique strengths, so often it’s not one-size-fits-all: developers, for instance, might use Copilot in code, ChatGPT for brainstorming ideas or explanations, and Google for researching facts – leveraging each where it is strongest.

_________

FOLLOW US FOR MORE.

DATA STUDIOS

datastudios.org