An objective comparison of Claude 3.5, GPT-4o, and Gemini 2.0 across real tasks. Benchmarks, practical performance, pricing, and recommendations.
Claude vs GPT-4 vs Gemini: Which AI Model Actually Performs Best in 2025?
Three AI models dominate in 2025: Anthropic's Claude, OpenAI's GPT-4, and Google's Gemini.
Each company claims theirs is best. Benchmarks are cherry-picked. Marketing is everywhere.
Here's an honest comparison based on real usage.
The Contenders
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic)
- Released: June 2024, updated October 2024
- Context: 200K tokens
- Strengths: Coding, long documents, nuanced writing
- API: Available
- Consumer: Claude.ai, Claude Pro ($20/month)
GPT-4o (OpenAI)
- Released: May 2024
- Context: 128K tokens
- Strengths: General knowledge, multimodal, ecosystem
- API: Available
- Consumer: ChatGPT Plus ($20/month)
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Google)
- Released: December 2024
- Context: 1M tokens
- Strengths: Speed, long context, Google integration
- API: Available
- Consumer: Gemini Advanced ($20/month)
Benchmark Overview
| Benchmark |
Claude 3.5 |
GPT-4o |
Gemini 2.0 |
| MMLU (knowledge) |
88.7% |
88.7% |
90.0% |
| HumanEval (coding) |
92.0% |
90.2% |
89.5% |
| MATH |
71.1% |
76.6% |
78.2% |
| GSM8K (math reasoning) |
96.4% |
95.8% |
95.2% |
Takeaway: They're all extremely capable. Benchmark differences of 2-3% rarely matter in practice. To understand what these benchmarks actually measure, read our AI benchmark guide.
Real-World Performance by Task
Coding
Winner: Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Claude consistently produces cleaner, more idiomatic code. It understands project context better and makes fewer assumptions. This is why Claude dominates in AI coding assistants for professional development work.
GPT-4o is close but tends toward more verbose solutions. Gemini is capable but occasionally generates outdated patterns.
For complex, multi-file changes: Claude > GPT-4o > Gemini
For quick snippets: Roughly equal
Writing
Winner: Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Claude's writing is more natural, less "AI-sounding." It follows instructions more precisely and maintains consistent tone.
GPT-4o tends toward a distinctive "helpful assistant" voice that's harder to customize.
Gemini writes well but sometimes produces generic, wiki-style content.
Analysis and Reasoning
Winner: Tie (Claude/GPT-4o)
Both handle complex analysis well. Claude is slightly better at following complex instructions. GPT-4o has broader knowledge for obscure topics.
Gemini 2.0 improved significantly here but still trails slightly.
Math and Science
Winner: GPT-4o / Gemini 2.0
For pure mathematical reasoning, GPT-4o and Gemini edge out Claude. The difference is marginal for everyday calculations but noticeable for complex proofs.
Long Document Processing
Winner: Gemini 2.0
With 1M token context, Gemini can process entire codebases or book-length documents in one shot. Claude's 200K is substantial but doesn't match this.
For documents under 100K tokens: all perform similarly.
For very long documents: Gemini is the clear choice.
Speed
Winner: Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini Flash is noticeably faster than both Claude and GPT-4o. For real-time applications or high-volume processing, this matters.
Claude and GPT-4o are comparable in speed.
Multimodal (Images, Vision)
Winner: GPT-4o
GPT-4o's vision capabilities are the most refined. Image understanding is more accurate and nuanced.
Claude's vision is good but not quite as strong.
Gemini handles images well, especially for Google-related content (Maps, Search integration).
Pricing Comparison
API Pricing (per 1M tokens)
| Model |
Input |
Output |
| Claude 3.5 Sonnet |
$3.00 |
$15.00 |
| GPT-4o |
$2.50 |
$10.00 |
| Gemini 2.0 Flash |
$0.075 |
$0.30 |
Note: Gemini Flash is dramatically cheaper. If cost is primary concern and you don't need the absolute best quality, it's compelling.
Consumer Pricing
All three offer $20/month consumer plans with generous usage. At this tier, the choice should be based on quality, not cost.
The Honest Truth About Each
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Best at:
- Coding (particularly complex projects)
- Following nuanced instructions
- Writing that doesn't sound like AI
- Technical documentation
- Long, detailed tasks
Worst at:
- Mathematical proofs
- Very recent information (knowledge cutoff)
- Some multimodal tasks
Personality: Thoughtful, careful, sometimes overly cautious
GPT-4o
Best at:
- Broad knowledge coverage
- Multimodal understanding
- Ecosystem integration (plugins, GPTs)
- Quick, general-purpose tasks
- Handling ambiguous requests
Worst at:
- Very long documents
- Following highly specific format requirements
- Maintaining consistent voice in long pieces
Personality: Eager to help, sometimes too verbose
Gemini 2.0
Best at:
- Speed
- Very long contexts
- Google ecosystem integration
- Cost-sensitive applications
- Real-time information (via Google Search)
Worst at:
- Matching Claude's code quality
- Creative writing nuance
- Complex multi-step reasoning
Personality: Fast and practical, less distinctive voice
Recommendations by Use Case
For Software Development
Use: Claude 3.5 Sonnet
The code quality difference is real and meaningful. Worth the slightly higher cost. If you're using vibe coding tools, Claude-powered options like Cursor deliver the best results.
For Content Writing
Use: Claude 3.5 Sonnet
More natural output, better instruction following.
For General Assistant Tasks
Use: GPT-4o or Claude (flip a coin)
Both are excellent. Use whatever you have access to.
For Data Analysis
Use: GPT-4o with Code Interpreter
The ability to run Python code and iterate makes GPT-4o's data analysis superior.
For Processing Large Documents
Use: Gemini 2.0 Flash
The 1M context window is unmatched for this use case.
For High-Volume API Usage
Use: Gemini 2.0 Flash
When you're making thousands of API calls, the 10-20x cost difference matters.
For Enterprise Deployment
Use: Depends on your stack
- Microsoft shop: GPT-4o (Azure integration)
- Google Cloud: Gemini
- Best quality regardless: Claude
My Personal Take
I use all three regularly. Here's when:
Claude: Primary choice for coding, writing, and anything requiring precision. My default.
GPT-4o: When I need image analysis, web browsing, or access to the plugin ecosystem. Backup for when Claude is overloaded.
Gemini: When processing very long documents or when I need speed over polish. Also for quick questions that don't warrant Claude's thoroughness.
The Bottom Line
There is no single "best" model. The right choice depends on:
- Your primary use case (coding → Claude, vision → GPT-4o, long docs → Gemini)
- Your cost sensitivity (Gemini is dramatically cheaper at API level)
- Your ecosystem (Microsoft → OpenAI, Google → Gemini, independent → Claude)
- Your quality bar (highest quality → Claude for most tasks)
For most people reading this: Claude 3.5 Sonnet is the best default choice. It's strongest where AI assistance matters most—coding and writing.
But honestly? All three are remarkable. The differences are smaller than the marketing suggests. You'll be well-served by any of them.
The real skill is learning to use whichever one you choose effectively.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which AI model is best for coding: Claude, GPT-4, or Gemini?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is the best for coding in 2025. It consistently produces cleaner, more idiomatic code and handles complex multi-file changes better than competitors. GPT-4o is close but tends toward verbosity, while Gemini is capable but occasionally uses outdated patterns. For professional software development, Claude is the clear winner.
Is Claude better than GPT-4 for writing?
Yes, Claude 3.5 Sonnet produces more natural writing that sounds less "AI-like." It follows instructions more precisely and maintains consistent tone better than GPT-4o. GPT-4o tends toward a distinctive "helpful assistant" voice that's harder to customize, while Gemini produces more generic, wiki-style content.
Why is Gemini 2.0 so much cheaper than Claude and GPT-4?
Gemini 2.0 Flash costs $0.075 per 1M input tokens compared to $2.50-3.00 for Claude and GPT-4. Google optimized for speed and efficiency over absolute quality. While Flash is very capable, it doesn't quite match Claude's code quality or GPT-4's nuanced understanding. For cost-sensitive or high-volume applications, the price difference is compelling.
Which AI has the longest context window?
Gemini 2.0 has a 1M token context window, far exceeding Claude's 200K and GPT-4o's 128K tokens. This makes Gemini the clear choice for processing entire codebases, book-length documents, or any task requiring very long context. For documents under 100K tokens, all three perform similarly.
Can I use multiple AI models together?
Yes, and many developers do exactly this. A common pattern is using Claude as the primary tool for coding and writing, GPT-4o for image analysis and plugins, and Gemini for long document processing or high-volume API tasks. Each model has strengths—using them strategically based on the task makes sense.
How do I choose between Claude, GPT-4, and Gemini?
Choose based on your primary use case: Claude for coding and writing quality, GPT-4o for broad knowledge and vision tasks, Gemini for long documents and cost sensitivity. For most developers and content creators, Claude 3.5 Sonnet is the best default. All three are remarkably capable—the differences are smaller than marketing suggests.
The Bottom Line
All three models are remarkably capable. The differences are real but smaller than marketing suggests. Pick based on your primary use case:
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet: Best for coding and professional writing
- GPT-4o: Best for broad knowledge tasks and vision
- Gemini 2.0: Best for long documents and cost-sensitive applications
The best approach? Try all three on your actual use cases. The right choice is the one that works best for your specific needs.
Need help choosing AI tools for your business? Cedar Operations helps companies implement the right AI solutions. Let's discuss your needs →
Related reading:
CEDAR OPERATIONS