By Meka Coven
An answer can look useful before it has survived a check. That is the trap in a quick DeepSeek vs ChatGPT comparison. If one tab gets a different prompt, file, or follow-up, you are comparing the setup as much as the models. The smoother response often wins before anyone checks the details.
Use a real task instead. Keep the inputs fixed and decide what would make the answer usable. The aim is not to name a permanent winner. It is to see which answer holds up when you check the claims and try to use it.
SuperCompareAI sends one question to selected AI services in one browser flow. That makes it easier to ask multiple AI models at once without rebuilding the same setup.
• Introduce: https://www.supercompareai.com/
• Chrome extension: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/supercompareai-compare-ch/fhbnhohjeakmodifnnmpmphacbnolfhf
Pick a task you can verify
Choose work with a visible finish line: a planning memo, a code review, a research outline, or a rewrite with a fixed audience and length. A clever puzzle can produce a memorable answer, but it tells you little about the work waiting on your desk.
Before you ask anything, write down:
• What the answer needs to help you decide or deliver
• Which facts, files, links, and examples both services may use
• The audience, format, length, and other limits
• Which claims need a source or a separate check
• What a wrong answer would look like for this task
Then write one prompt that you can reuse:
Prompt example
I am working on [specific task]. Use only the context below. Give me one recommendation, list the assumptions behind it, name two risks, and mark any claim I should verify.
Send the same prompt, context, and files to DeepSeek and ChatGPT. If you add Claude or Gemini, treat it as a third view instead of changing the test. If a service handles a file or link differently, record that difference rather than quietly rewriting the input.
Read the output before choosing
On the first pass, read both answers without scoring them. On the second pass, check the details that can change your next action:
• Did the answer follow the requested format and limits?
• Did it use the supplied context, or drift into generic advice?
• Which claims, assumptions, and links still need checking?
• Can you act on the recommendation without filling in missing pieces?
• Did the answer explain uncertainty where it mattered?
• What changed after the same follow-up question?
A confident sentence is not evidence. Agreement is not proof either. One answer may sound more useful because it is direct, while the other leaves an important uncertainty visible. For a work decision, check which claims survive a separate review.
SuperCompareAI is a Chrome extension for choosing AI services, asking multiple AI models at once, and comparing their answers side by side. The official pages list 12 selectable services: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Studio, Grok, GenSpark, Qwen, DeepSeek, Copilot, Z.ai, and Kimi. They also describe using existing AI accounts without provider API keys, browser-side operation, local browser history, question templates, custom sites, and file or image attachments. Those are product facts, not a verdict about any model's answer.
If you want to compare multiple AI models simultaneously without rebuilding the same prompt in several tabs, SuperCompareAI keeps the repeated dispatch step in one browser workflow while you do the checking.
• Introduce: https://www.supercompareai.com/
• Chrome extension: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/supercompareai-compare-ch/fhbnhohjeakmodifnnmpmphacbnolfhf
Give both models the same follow-up
The first answer often hides an assumption. Ask DeepSeek and ChatGPT the same second question instead of repairing only the response you liked less:
Prompt example
Review your previous answer. Name one assumption that could fail, one claim I should verify, and one change you would make if the audience were [audience].
Compare the revisions as carefully as the first answers. Did one service notice a real gap? Did it change a recommendation without explaining why? Did it ask for information that the original prompt did not provide?
Do this before one answer influences how you read the other. Once you paste a response from one model into another, you are testing synthesis rather than the original side-by-side question.
Keep a small test record
The extension sending one question to selected AI services in one browser flow is a product fact. Which answer worked better for your task is a test finding. The first comes from the official product pages. The second depends on your prompt, context, checks, and notes.
Instead of writing "ChatGPT was better" after one run, record what happened. Note the task, the input each service received, the claim you checked, and why one answer was easier to use. That record will be more useful than a single impressive screenshot.
Keep a short comparison note after each run:
• The exact prompt and prompt version
• The services, context, files, and links you supplied
• Claims that still need verification
• The answer or section you used
• What changed after the shared follow-up
• Why the result fits, or does not fit, this task
The same record works for ChatGPT vs Claude, Gemini vs Grok, or another pair. Your result may change with the audience, source material, or type of decision. That is a finding about the task, not a permanent label for a model.
Choose based on the job in front of you
DeepSeek vs ChatGPT is a test setup, not a permanent verdict. Keep the conditions visible and choose only after checking the evidence. A different task can produce a different result, even with the same services.
SuperCompareAI can handle the repeated question-and-dispatch step, so you can spend your time comparing evidence and deciding what to use. You still decide what to trust after reviewing the claims and the next action.
• Introduce: https://www.supercompareai.com/
• Chrome extension: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/supercompareai-compare-ch/fhbnhohjeakmodifnnmpmphacbnolfhf
Written by Meka Coven.
