Claude Vs. ChatGPT: Which AI Chatbot Should You Use?

Claude Vs. ChatGPT at a Glance

Before we jump into detailed comparisons, let's get a general feel for what the latest versions of Claude and ChatGPT are bringing to the table.

‍

‍

In terms of features, here’s how the two platforms compare:

‍

‍

So, ChatGPT is more feature-rich, at a glance. We’ll see how this plays into real-world experience, if at all, later in the article, when we compare real-world performance.

But before we get into that, let’s set the stage.

What is Claude?

Claude is the brainchild of Anthropic, a company that’s actually created by ex-OpenAI employees.

Anthropic has released several versions of Claude, but the models we’re interested in are the fourth generation:

‍

• Claude Sonnet 4: Building on its predecessor, Sonnet 4 scores 72.7% on SWE-bench, a benchmark that tests an AI's ability to solve software engineering problems. We’ll see how this compares to ChatGPT later in the article.

• Claude Opus 4: achieved a 72.5% score on SWE-bench and 43.2% on Terminal-bench, another test for complex computational tasks. Notably, Opus 4 features a hybrid reasoning architecture, which allows users to opt for quicker responses or more thorough, extended thinking from the AI. It can also produce up to 32,000 tokens in its output.

‍

What is ChatGPT?

ChatGPT hardly needs an introduction. It's the model that catapulted generative AI into the spotlight and became a household name almost overnight.

OpenAI is on a mission to develop AGI and make it safe for humanity. 

ChatGPT’s model lineup has become so large that even the creators admitted that it’s confusing. For this comparison, we’re most interested in these models:

‍

• GPT-4o: The "o" in GPT-4o stands for "omni," which highlights its ability to process and generate information across text, images, and audio. It is the base model that powers the free tier of ChatGPT and competes directly with Claude Sonnet 4, which powers the free tier of Claude.

• ChatGPT 4.1 is a family of models focused on coding. It scored 54.6% on the SWE-bench Verified test. Its advantage over Claude is its ability to handle up to 1 million tokens at once.

• ChatGPT 4.5 is OpenAI's latest conversational model which focuses on improving factual accuracy and making conversations feel more natural. It knows more, makes fewer mistakes, and feels more human.

‍

Claude Vs. ChatGPT in the Benchmarks

First, the theoretical test. to compare these models in coding and general intelligence.

We'll analyze their performance using SWE-bench Verified for coding and MMLU/GPQA Diamond for general intelligence (writing and day-in, day-out tasks you’d expect the AI assistant to perform, like drafting emails and answering questions).

Coding Performance (SWE-bench Verified)

‍

‍

Here, Claude models are far ahead, especially Sonnet 4. GPT-4.1 is a significant upgrade from GPT-4o, but when you compare it to Claude Sonnet 4, it's like comparing apples to oranges.

General Intelligence (MMLU/GPQA Diamond)

‍

‍

Here Claude Opus 4 is the most accurate, but GPT-4.5 is very close. Sonnet 4 also edges GPT-4o, so it looks like Claude comes out ahead both for free and for paid users.

But how do these benchmarks translate into practical, real-world differences? Read on to find out if Claude is twice as good of an AI coder as ChatGPT.

Claude Vs. ChatGPT Coding Test

I asked Claude Sonnet 4 and ChatGPT 4.1 each to develop an app from scratch.

For this test, I chose a data visualization project. For this project, the models need to select a stack, install dependencies, write a complex UI, handle errors, and explain their approach. There's just enough room for creativity here.

Here’s the prompt I used:

Please create a modern, production-quality React web application that allows users to upload a CSV file and view detailed analytics for each column in the data.

Core features required:

- CSV Upload: A clear interface for users to select and upload a CSV file.

- User Guidance: Display easy-to-follow instructions explaining accepted CSV formats, example data, and what the analytics output will include.

Analytics Output:

For each column in the CSV, show:

• The mean (for numeric columns only)
• The median (for numeric columns only)
• The top 3 most common values (for all columns, with their frequencies)
• Display charts for visualization
• Allow the user to download the analytics as a CSV file.

Results should be clearly organized in a responsive table or card layout.

Basic Error Handling:

Handle errors gracefully, such as:

• Malformed CSVs
• Non-numeric data in numeric analytics
• Empty files or unsupported file types
• Show clear, user-friendly error messages.

UX/UI:

• Clean, intuitive, and modern UI (consider using a component library like Material UI or shadcn/ui for polish).
• Responsive design for desktop and mobile.

Deliverables:

• All code needed to run the application.
• A short written explanation of the approach and how to use the app.

‍

So, how did they do?

‍

ChatGPT Results

For this test, I selected GPT 4.1, which is the best non-deep reasoning coding model OpenAI offers (this will be a fair test against Claude Sonnet 4).

After giving it the prompt, ChatGPT started writing code in the chat, instead of a canvas, which wouldn’t allow me to preview the result.

Instead, the chatbot offered me to configure a local development environment:

‍

‍

I had to add this line to the prompt: “Run the app in a canvas so I can preview it,” and after I did it worked as expected.

The second thing I noticed was the speed — ChatGPT completed my request in just 10 seconds, wiring 221 lines of code. But did it compromise on the quality for being this fast? 

Well, running the app, this is what the homepage looks like:

‍

‍

After clicking on the Select CSV file… button, here’s the results page:

‍

‍

I’m not convinced that this can be called a production-quality application. On the plus side, the interface feels snappy. But on the other hand:

‍

• The design is basic
• It’s hard to read the data
• The user experience is questionable

‍

I don’t understand its logic behind the sample CVS — what’s the point of showing that?

Here’s how I’d rate ChatGPT 4.1 coding ability:

‍

‍

Claude Results

For this test, I selected Claude Sonnet 4. I used exactly the same prompt. The first immediate difference? Claude created an artefact without asking.

The thing I noticed was that Claude was slower, taking 40 seconds writing 414 lines of code. So, in a single message, Claude wrote nearly twice as much code as ChatGPT. But does this translate into a noticeable improvement in the app's quality?

Well, running the app, here’s how the homepage looks like:

‍

‍

In my opinion, the design is not only more modern but is also more user-friendly and functional. It even includes drag-and-drop file uploads.

Uploading the file, the information is much more readable:

‍

‍

Claude also wrote a better project explanation:

‍

‍

Here’s how I’d rate Claude’s effort:

‍

‍

Claude Vs. ChatGPT for Coding: My Take

Claude is the clear winner here.

‍

• Claude’s app is clearly more polished in terms of design and being user-friendly.
• Yes, ChatGPT was twice as fast, but we’re talking about a marginal difference — only about 15-20 seconds (considering that Claude wrote twice as much code).
• Also, I found that working with ChatGPT involved more back-and-forth: giving the model a task, the model misinterpreting the task, and me having to correct it, which was mildly frustrating.

‍

And remember, we're comparing a ChatGPT model that’s locked behind a premium tier to a free Claude model (with restrictions).

‍

Claude Vs. ChatGPT Reasoning Test

To test how well ChatGPT and Claude can reason about complex scenarios, I used a variation of a real question that product owners sometimes get asked during technical interviews.

Here’s the question:

‍

My team has been building an AI-powered expense categorization feature for our fintech app for 2 months, launch scheduled in 2 weeks. We've already spent $20K on influencer partnerships, secured TechCrunch coverage, and promised existing premium users (5K subscribers at $12/month) this feature as part of their subscription value. Yesterday, our devs discovered the AI categorization has a critical accuracy bug, and we can’t roll it out. We need another 3-4 weeks. But our main competitor just announced their similar feature launching in 2 weeks. My investors are expecting user engagement metrics for next week's board meeting. What do I do?

‍

What we’re looking for isn’t a one, 100% correct answer, but the model’s ability to think about the problem logically. 

Basically, I want it to question everything and provide options.

For this test, I’m using ChatGPT-4.5 model and pitting it against Claude Sonnet 4.

‍

ChatGPT Reasoning Test Result

Here’s what ChatGPT had to say:

‍

Claude Reasoning Test Result Result

Here’s how Claude Sonnet 4 tackled the problem:

‍

Claude Vs. ChatGPT Reasoning Ability: My Take

To be honest both models did worse than expected in this test.

It’s hard to measure this sort of test objectively using predefined criteria, so I’ll just offer my two cents and assign an arbitrary score.

There’s a lot of fluff in these replies, but both models essentially suggested to:

‍

1. Immediately tell your users you broke a promise and bribe their goodwill
2. Lie to stakeholders (sort of)
3. Release a half-baked feature if you can swing it
4. And then tell your investors how much code your team has written. Can’t imagine that going very well

‍

Now, neither model tried to challenge my assumptions, and neither reply has any practical steps as to how to perform these (questionable) action points.

Sure, ChatGPT and Claude can help you write an email, plan a trip, or make a packing list, but don’t rely on them to make important decisions.

‍

ChatGPT: 2/10

Claude: 2/10

‍

I know this is cheating, but the real winner of this test is Gemini 2.5 Pro: 

‍

Bottom Line: Choose Claude

I’d pick Claude over ChatGPT, and here’s why:

‍

In terms of coding, Claude Sonnet is a stronger model than GPT-4.1, which both benchmarks and real-world tests confirm. Unless you're willing $200/month for limited access to OpenAI's o1, you won’t get the same coding ability on the GPT side. In terms of reasoning, they’re about equal. Neither is particularly great here. 

‍

So, when you factor a $20 monthly subscription for their respective Pro and Plus plans costs exactly the same, my advice is to go with Claude.

One exception to this rule? If you need image generation, which Claude doesn’t support.

‍

FAQ

‍

Claude AI Vs. ChatGPT, which is better overall?

This depends on the model, but Claude Sonnet 4 is better than ChatGPT 4.1 for most users, particularly coding. Both cost $20/month for their premium tiers. But ChatGPT offers more features like image generation, voice chat, and memory.

‍

When to use Claude Vs. ChatGPT?

Choose Claude if you need an AI coding assistant, or even for technical writing. Pick ChatGPT if you need image generation, voice chats, or web browsing. ChatGPT is also better for users who prioritize having the latest features and integrations.

‍

Claude Vs. ChatGPT, which is better for coding?

Claude is definitively better for coding, and benchmarks confirm this: Claude Sonnet 4 scores 72.7% on SWE-bench compared to ChatGPT 4.1's 54.6%, and in real-world testing, Claude creates better apps.