ChatGPT vs Claude vs Gemini

Reasoning is the most heavily weighted criterion because it determines how useful the model is on novel problems rather than familiar recall tasks.

Claude Opus 4.7 scores 10/10 in this category. Its extended thinking mode produces coherent multi-step plans and it handles adversarial questions with fewer hallucinations than its peers. Independent evaluations show Opus 4.7 ahead of GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro on structured reasoning benchmarks such as GPQA-Diamond and a clear leader on agentic tasks where the model has to plan over long horizons.

GPT-5.4 scores 9/10. OpenAI's reasoning trace is strong and the model is fast. It occasionally overcommits to a wrong first answer under time pressure, where Claude is more likely to pause and reconsider. For most users the gap is small in practice.

Gemini 3.1 Pro scores 8/10. It is a capable reasoner with particularly strong performance on mathematical and scientific tasks, but it trails on agentic evaluations where planning and revision matter.

Code generation is the single largest professional use case for AI assistants and where the three models differ most clearly.

Claude Opus 4.7 scores 10/10. It is the default model inside Claude Code, Cursor and several enterprise IDEs because it handles multi-file changes and long debugging sessions more reliably than any alternative. It rarely loses track of imports, closes parentheses correctly in large diffs and asks clarifying questions when the request is ambiguous.

GPT-5.4 scores 9/10. Its code quality on single-file tasks is essentially a match for Claude. In agentic workflows it is slightly more likely to forget earlier constraints after many turns.

Gemini 3.1 Pro scores 7/10. Its code is clean and idiomatic but it is noticeably weaker on repository-scale refactors. The 1M token context helps it see the whole codebase but it uses that context less effectively than Claude.

Claude Opus 4.7 scores 9/10 for writing. Its default voice is the least distinctive of the three, which sounds like a weakness but is the single biggest strength for long-form work. When asked to match a specific tone it does so more consistently than GPT-5.4 or Gemini.

GPT-5.4 scores 8/10. It is fast and produces useful first drafts but has a recognisable cadence that many readers find "AI-flavoured". It is still the better choice for short marketing copy and outlines where speed matters more than tone.

Gemini 3.1 Pro scores 7/10. It writes competently but tends toward more uniform structure and hedged language.

Claude Opus 4.7 scores 6/10. It reads images and PDFs well but does not generate images and has no native voice mode in the consumer product.

GPT-5.4 scores 10/10. It combines the most mature image generation, the most capable voice mode and native screen and camera sharing on mobile. For anyone whose workflow involves visual creation or spoken conversation, GPT-5.4 is the clear pick.

Gemini 3.1 Pro scores 8/10. It has strong image understanding, competent image generation via Imagen and a solid voice mode in the Gemini app. Its video understanding is the best of the three.

At the consumer tier, all three offer a $20 per month entry plan with broadly equivalent value. Claude Pro includes Opus 4.7 with usage limits. ChatGPT Plus includes GPT-5.4 with higher usage limits and image generation. Google One AI Premium at £18.99 per month includes Gemini 3.1 Pro plus 2TB of Google Drive storage.

On the API, Gemini is the cheapest option. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is $0.25 per million input tokens, Claude Haiku 4.5 is $1 per million and GPT-5.1 is $0.63 per million. For high-volume applications these differences compound quickly.