By Meka Coven
ChatGPT and Claude can both produce an answer that sounds finished. That is why a quick favorite-picking exercise can mislead you. If you change the wording, leave out a file, or ask the follow-up only to one service, you are no longer comparing the same task.
Use work you already need to finish. Give both services the same job, context, and limits. Then check the parts that affect your next step. The useful question is smaller than "Which model is best?" It is "Which answer holds up for this job?"
SuperCompareAI sends one question to selected AI services in one browser flow. It is useful when you want to ask multiple AI models at once without rebuilding the same prompt in several tabs.
• Introduce: https://www.supercompareai.com/
• Chrome extension: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/supercompareai-compare-ch/fhbnhohjeakmodifnnmpmphacbnolfhf
Start with a task you can verify
Pick a task with a clear finish line: a rewrite for a named audience, a code review, a research outline, or a short project plan. A general question may be interesting, but it gives you less to inspect afterward.
Before you run a ChatGPT vs Claude test, write down:
• The exact decision or deliverable the answer should support
• The facts, files, links, and examples both services may use
• The audience, format, length, and hard limits
• The claims that need a source or a separate check
• What would make the answer unusable for this task
Now make one prompt you can reuse:
Prompt example
I need to [specific task] for [audience]. Use only the context below. Give me one recommendation, state the assumptions behind it, identify two risks, and mark any claim I should verify.
Send that prompt with the same context to ChatGPT and Claude. Add Gemini when a third comparison view would help. Record what each service received. If one service handles a file or link differently, note that as part of the test instead of quietly changing the setup.
Compare the parts that change your next step
Read the first answers once without picking a winner. On the second pass, check:
• Did the response follow the requested format and limits?
• Did it use the supplied context, or fall back to general advice?
• Which claims and assumptions still need checking?
• Can you act on the recommendation without filling in missing pieces?
• Did it show uncertainty where uncertainty mattered?
• Did it explain a tradeoff that the other answer skipped?
A confident sentence is not evidence. Agreement is not proof either. One answer may be shorter while another exposes a risk you had missed. For a real decision, check which claims survive a separate review.
The official SuperCompareAI pages describe a Chrome extension that sends one question to selected AI services and compares their answers in one browser flow. The official product pages currently 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. They do not prove that ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini will be better for your particular task.
If you compare multiple AI models simultaneously, keep the repeated dispatch step separate from the judgment step. An AI comparison tool can help you send the same prompt and keep multiple AI models side by side, but you still decide which claims are safe to use.
• Introduce: https://www.supercompareai.com/
• Chrome extension: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/supercompareai-compare-ch/fhbnhohjeakmodifnnmpmphacbnolfhf
Give every service the same follow-up
The first answer often hides an assumption. Ask ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini the same second question instead of repairing only the answer you liked less:
Prompt example
Review your previous answer. Name one assumption that could fail, one claim I should verify, and one detail you would change for [audience].
Compare those revisions too. Did a service notice a real gap? Did it change a recommendation without explaining why? Did it ask for information the original prompt did not provide?
Run the shared follow-up before one response influences how you read the others. Once you paste ChatGPT's answer into Claude, or Claude's into ChatGPT, you are testing synthesis rather than the original side-by-side question.
Keep the test note small
Separate observed product facts from your own test result. The extension's one-question dispatch and comparison flow are facts described by the official product pages. Which answer worked better for your task is your result, and it depends on the prompt, context, checks, and notes you kept.
After each run, record:
• The exact prompt and its version
• The services, files, links, and context 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
That note keeps one impressive response from becoming a permanent label. A different audience or source document can change the result. That is not a flaw in the test; it is information about the work.
Choose after the check
ChatGPT vs Claude is a useful comparison, not a permanent verdict. Add Gemini when you need a third view, keep the conditions visible, and choose the response that holds up after you check it.
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.
• Introduce: https://www.supercompareai.com/
• Chrome extension: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/supercompareai-compare-ch/fhbnhohjeakmodifnnmpmphacbnolfhf
Written by Meka Coven.
