[kerpal]

Claude/Anthropic is more focused on productivity (Coding, Spreadsheets, Reports). ChatGPT seems more focused on general-purpose LLM (Research, Cooking, Writing, Image Generation).

Makes sense that MS would partner with Anthropic since their tool-use for productivity (Claude Code) seems superior. I personally rarely code with ChatGPT, almost strictly Claude.

[dmurray]

Some people might be surprised that MS would pick the product with the best technological fit rather than the one they already have a deep business and financial relationship with.

Surely Microsoft's expertise these days is in cross-selling passable but not best-in-class products to enterprises who already pay for Microsoft products.

It says something about how they view the AI coding market, or perhaps the level of the gap between Anthropic and OpenAI here, that they've gone the other way.

[dijit]

They are right to be surprised.

Why is Azure popular? Not on its own merits, it's because there is a pre-existing relationship with Microsoft.

Why is Teams the most widely used chat tool? Certainly not because it's good.. it is, again, pre-existing business relationships.

Seems odd for a company that survives (perhaps even thrives) on these kinds of intertwined business reasons to, themselves, understand that they should go for merit instead.

[mikestorrent]

Yep. Similarly, Microsoft Entra... if you want Office, you're getting it anyway. Might as well use it for SSO, right? And here's your free Teams license... how can you justify paying for Slack when we've a perfectly good chat client at home?

[dijit]

I tried for a while to get Entra working with an external identity provider (Google Workspace).

The other way around worked (Google could use Entra) but it was basically impossible to backend Entra from Google. Weird.

[vehemenz]

Except nobody chooses M365 Copilot over ChatGPT or Claude, so clearly the usual reasons aren't working. In this case, improving the product via integration is a last resort.

[thewebguyd]

> It says something about how they view the AI coding market

I think Microsoft views models as a commodity and they'd rather lean into their strengths as a tool maker, so this is Microsoft putting themselves into a position to make tools around/for any AI/LLM model, not just ones they have a partnership with.

Honestly I think this sort of agnosticism around AI will work out well for them.

[pnathan]

I've been happy with Anthropic models. I also have been using the Google models more, with decent results. The Copilot/OpenAI models don't seem to be as good as a rule of thumb, can't explain exactly why.

Overall, I think Google has a better breadth of knowledge encoded, but Anthropic gets work done better.

[_fat_santa]

This has been largely my experience as well. Claude does way better with coding while ChatGPT does better with general questions.

[bobbylarrybobby]

The new gpt-codex-* models are giving Claude Code a serious run for its money IMO. If OpenAI can figure out the Codex CLI UI (better permissions, more back and forth before executing) then I think they will have the better agentic coder.

[kerpal]

Tried codex but so far feels a lot slower than claude code. Perhaps because I'm on the basic plan?

[mnky9800n]

I like perplexity's deep research model which is based on deepseek i think. i use that for most kind of writing, discussion, research, etc. where I need some kind of feedback. Claude seems to go crazy sometimes when you ask it to do the same task. Whereas for coding, Claude Code is obviously better than everything else under the sun.

[SparkyMcUnicorn]

I decided to give perplexity another try a few days ago, and it still seems to hallucinate things. Given the same exact tasks/prompts both Claude and Chatgpt got the facts correct.

[nsonha]

Perplexity uses those same models without "deep research" on, don't see how the result would be any different. I haven't gotten have any problem with it. Claude should be good but they rate limit too much their desktop and site it's almost unusable every time I tried.

[jakderrida]

I'd argue that Anthropic still has a hard edge on creativity for things like emulating people's comments.

I've fed into several models my past reddit comments (with the comments it's responding to) and asked it to duplicate the style. Claude has always been the only thing that comes even close to original responses that even I think would be exactly my response, wording and all.

GPT or Gemini will just borrow snippets from the example text and just smoosh it together to make semi-coherent points. Scratch that. They're coherent, but they're just unmistakably not from me.

[m_mueller]

GPT-5 is pretty decent nowadays, but Claude 4 Sonnet is superior in most cases. GPT beats it in cost and usable context window when something quite complex comes up to plan top-down.

[boredtofears]

What I find interesting is how much opinions vary on this. Open a different thread and people will seem to have consensus on GPT or Gemini being superior.

Even the bench marks don’t seem all that helpful.

[TuxSH]

Well, last I checked Claude's webchat UI doesn't have LaTeX rendering for output messages which is extremely annoying.

On the other hand, I wish ChatGPT had GitHub integration in Projects, not just in Codex.

I've also had Claude Sonnet 4.0 Thinking spew forth incorrect answers many times for complex problems involving some math (with incapability to write a former proof sometimes), whereas ChatGPT 5 Thinking gives me correct answers with formal proof.

[kissgyorgy]

I think it depends on the domain. For example, GPT-5 is better for frontend, React code, but struggles with niche things like Nix. Claude's UI designs are not as pretty as GPT-5's.

[omneity]

This is also pretty subjective. I’m a power user of both and tend to prefer Claude’s UI about 70-80% of the time.

I often would use Claude to do a “make it pretty” pass after implementation with GPT-5. I find Claude’s spatial and visual understanding when dealing with frontend to be better.

I am sure others will have the exact opposite experience.

[gunalx]

My experience is exactly opposite. Claude excelling in ui, and react. While gpt5 being better on really niche stuff, migth just be me better at caching when gpt5 halucinates as opposed to the claude4 hallucinations.

But after openai started gatekeeping all their new decent models in the api, i will happily refuse to buy more credits, and rather use foss models from other providers (I wish claude had proper no log policies).

[boredtofears]

This is what I mean - even opinions on domain are wildly different. I've seen people say Claude's React is best.

[CharlieIsAHero]

What do you mean by usable context window? Sonnet 4 is 968k and gpt5 is 368k. Are you saying the context window on sonnet is useless?

[CuriouslyC]

Sonnet long context performance sucks. https://fiction.live/stories/Fiction-liveBench-Feb-21-2025/o...

I can confirm Sonnet is good for vibe coding but makes an absolute mess of large and complex codebases, while GPT5 tends to be pretty respectful.

[m_mueller]

I never implied it's useless. I don't have scientific data to back this up either, this is just my personal "feeling" from a couple hundred hours I've spent working with these models this year: GPT-5 seems a bit better at top-down architectural work, while Sonnet is better at the detail coding level. In terms of usable context window, again from personal experience so far, to me GPT-5 has somewhat of an edge.

[613style]

Agreed. My experience is GPT5 is significantly better at large-scale planning & architecture (at least for the kind of stuff I care about which is strongly typed functional systems), and then Sonnet is much better at executing the plan. GPT5 is also better at code reviews and finding subtle mistakes if you prompt it well enough, but not totally reliable. Claude Code fills its context window and re-compacts often enough that I have to plan around it, so I'm surprised it's larger than GPT's.

[airstrike]

Are there any open models that compete with Claude in its tool use capabilities for complex tasks?

Feels like an area where we could use more competition...