Google's Gemini (formerly known as Bard) and OpenAI's ChatGPT are the two leading AI language models in 2024. 

Both are superb at natural language processing and each serves different use cases. 

But which AI tool performs better? 

In this analysis, we'll compare their strengths and weaknesses, helping you choose the right platform for your needs. 

We ran multiple tests to compare their performance across different functions, from writing to research and analysis.

Gemini aka Bard vs. ChatGPT In a Nutshell

Gemini (ex Bard) vs. ChatGPT: Key Differences and Similarities 

Google's Gemini and OpenAI's ChatGPT are both large language models (LLMs) that use natural language processing. 

However, they have important differences that set them apart. 

We tested both AI chatbots to figure out which tool works better for each use case—and where their capabilities overlap. Here’s what we found.

1. Both Gemini and ChatGPT Have Somewhat Unreliable Web Browsing Capabilities 

Both ChatGPT and Gemini’s web browsing features are constantly evolving. It can be hard to keep up with what each tool can and can't do. 

So let's take a quick look at the current state of play.

How ChatGPT browses the web:

As of 2024, ChatGPT’s "Browse with Bing" feature (which used to be a separate option) is now integrated into the GPT-4 model itself. 

Now, when you ask a question that needs the latest info, ChatGPT can automatically tap into a headless version of the Bing search engine to fetch relevant results. 

Users can prompt ChatGPT to search the web by asking it to find the latest information on a specific topic. ChatGPT will then use Bing to search the web and present summaries of the articles, along with source links.

However, as with any new tech, it's not all smooth sailing. Some users have reported inconsistencies and performance issues.

How Gemini browses the web:

Gemini boasts a deep integration with Google Search. In theory, this means it can use Google's vast database and search infrastructure to access up-to-date information from the web. 

It’s worth noting that, as with ChatGPT, users have reported varying results. 

Our test:

To test their web browsing capabilities, we gave each AI tool the following prompt: 

“Report on the most recent political developments in 2024. In short bullet points, quickly summarize any new legislation, significant political movements, or leadership changes that have occurred within the last month (July).”

Interestingly, Gemini said it couldn’t respond to the prompt: 

It’s clear that Google is still fine-tuning its search engine feature in response to evolving current affairs. This is understandable since false or confusing information can lead to much bigger issues (and even legal problems). 

In this case, Gemini directs users straight to Google Search instead, leaving them to find their own information. 

By contrast, ChatGPT searched seven different sites to give us this response: 

This output is accurate, relatively unbiased, informative, and includes links to sources. It doesn’t use the ‘short bullet points’ we asked for, but the information itself hits the brief. 

🚀 Let’s look at another example. This time, we asked both tools to give us information on upcoming events, rather than past ones. 

Here’s the prompt we used: “What European festivals are happening at the end of 2024 that I should keep an eye on?”

Let’s start with Gemini’s response: 

Gemini gave us just two generic suggestions (e.g., “winter festivals in Spain”). Each suggestion had a clickable image that linked us straight to their direct sources—the first to a YouTube video, the second to the festival’s official website. 

This is pretty sparse so you would need to follow up with your own research.

Now let’s look at ChatGPT: 

This is a much more comprehensive list—and ChatGPT goes beyond simply music in its interpretation of “festival”. 

That said, there are absolutely zero links, sources, or follow-up websites to be found. 

This leaves you to do your own research, which would require opening a separate tab and looking up each festival individually on Google or another search engine. 

We then asked ChatGPT to provide links, which it did. However, only some of those links were active.

💡 The outcome: Both Gemini and ChatGPT can be somewhat unreliable. They are, however, both working on improving their web browsing capabilities. 

If you need an AI tool that consistently delivers accurate information from the web, Perplexity might be a better choice for now. It's designed specifically for research and provides clear answers backed up by verifiable sources. 

2. Gemini Has a Larger Context Window, While ChatGPT Has Better Memory 

Before we compare Gemini and ChatGPT, let's first get clear on what we mean by context window and memory.

• Context window: This is how much information an AI model can juggle at once. Think of it like short-term memory—it helps the model keep track of what's been said recently in your chat. A bigger window means the model theoretically can handle more complex conversations without losing the thread of the discussion.
• Memory: This is the model's ability to remember things from past conversations. It's like its long-term memory. It helps personalize the experience and reference things you've talked about before, even if it's not in the immediate chat history.

So, how do both AI models compare in this regard?

Gemini: 

Gemini 1.5 Pro flexes a huge context window of up to 2 million tokens. That's the equivalent of thousands of pages of text! 

In theory, this should mean that Gemini excels at understanding intricate topics and generating relevant responses. 

However, many users have noticed that Gemini sometimes forgets things, even within the same conversation. 

You might get seemingly top-notch responses, but they can feel a bit disconnected or even contradictory at times. 

ChatGPT: 

ChatGPT has a more modest context window of 128, tokens (GTP-4 turbo). In theory, it should mean lower performance compared to Gemini. 

But in our experience, ChatGPT tends to be particularly quick with understanding requests and remembering information.

It also shines with its "Memory" feature. This allows the model to tap into past conversations. 

The result? A more personalized and contextually aware experience.

💡 The outcome: Despite the ‘official’ capabilities of each tool, you might find your experience a bit different. 

Ultimately, Gemini is terrific at providing more human-like responses—but can struggle with consistency and memory. 

ChatGPT has a smaller context window but will need a lot less ‘reminding’ with follow-up prompts. 

3. Gemini Outshines ChatGPT in Crafting Engaging Marketing Copy

In the battle between Gemini vs. ChatGPT for AI copywriting assistance, both tools have strengths and weaknesses. 

To figure out what they are, we put both tools to the test with the following prompt:

"H2=Advanced Strategies for User Engagement and Conversion 

H3=Lead Generation Optimization 

Complete this H3 in 150 words. Explain what it is and why this is important. Highlight how you can conduct this. Use simple English and everyday language"

Here’s what Gemini came up with:

We liked its output for several reasons:

1. The language is precise and avoids vague phrases, providing clear and actionable information.
2. The use of bucket brigades like "Why is this Important?" and "How to Optimize Lead Generation" keeps the reader hooked.
3. Bullet points and numbered lists make the content easy to scan and digest.
4. The conversational tone, with phrases like "Think of it as..." and "By focusing on these strategies, you'll be well on your way to...", speaks directly to the reader.

And here’s ChatGPT’s response: 

Its output, while covering similar points, falls short in comparison. It's more generic, less engaging, and lacks the same level of specificity and actionable advice.

🚀 To test the AI tools further, we gave them another prompt:

"I'm a content manager at a B2B SaaS company. Create a LinkedIn post about the importance of content repurposing."

Here’s Gemini’s output: 

While this output is quite long (even for a LinkedIn post), there are several things Gemini gets right here: 

1. The tone of voice aligns perfectly with LinkedIn's style, using an inclusive opener like "As B2B SaaS marketers" to create a sense of community and set a more relatable tone.
2. The post goes beyond just providing benefits and offers actionable, practical tips that the audience can use for their content repurposing strategies.
3. While it’s long, the post offers a mix of bullet points and numbered lists to make it scannable. 

Now let’s look at ChatGPT's output: 

This is a shorter post, making it easier to copy-paste straight into LinkedIn without some serious editing. 

The post is a lot clearer and easier to digest, but it’s missing that signature LinkedIn flair. 

It mentions the reasons why content repurposing is important, but fails to provide any actionable tips. This lack of actionable steps also limits opportunities for engagement. 

💡 The outcome: Any of these outputs would require some editing before going live on LinkedIn, but Gemini gives us more to work with. 

Its outputs are more reader-friendly, specific, and tailored to the nuances of different platforms. All in all, it’s a highly valuable tool for content creators.

4. Gemini Has a More Human Tone of Voice

As AI-generated content becomes more prevalent, we’re seeing a lot of generic, robotic-sounding content flooding the internet. 

It lacks personality and gives away its origins.

That's why honing a natural, human-like tone of voice is crucial for creating content that resonates with readers. 

To test this, we asked both tools to write a 3-sentence intro for a blog post about the 15 best ChatGPT alternatives.

Gemini:

Gemini's output is clear, concise, and conversational, getting straight to the point about what readers could expect from the blog post. 

It uses the active voice and avoids overly complex language, making it more accessible and engaging. 

Now let’s look at ChatGPT:

ChatGPT's response, while informative, is much more convoluted and less accessible. 

Longer words like 'capabilities' lean more towards an academic tone, which could potentially alienate some readers. 

Also, phrases like ‘in the rapidly evolving world’ make it look like an intro to a school essay.

All this makes it clear that AI was behind this text.

💡 The outcome: If you're looking for an AI writing tool with a more natural TOV, Gemini might be a better choice. 

It has proven its ability to write in a conversational style without sacrificing clarity. For busy marketers who don’t have hours to spend fine-tuning AI outputs, that’s a win. 

5. Both Tools Offer Creative Outputs, But Gemini is a Faster Ideation Partner 

When it comes to brainstorming, both ChatGPT and Gemini can generate interesting and relevant ideas. 

To test their creative chops, we asked ChatGPT and Gemini for blog ideas on personal finance.

We used the following prompt: “Provide 5 blog topic ideas on personal finance.”

Here’s what Gemini gave us:

What we like about this output is that Gemini has given us some different article formats. For example, it suggests creating success stories based on interviews and writing guides for beginners.

The ideas Gemini has come up with also cover diverse topics, such as the psychological aspects of personal finance, retirement planning, and budgeting for beginners.

While the titles sound a bit bland (e.g., “Financial Wellness: Mind Over Money), the content ideas were fairly creative—and definitely hit the brief.

So, what about ChatGPT? Here’s what it provided:

The topics are somewhat similar. It recommends writing about budgeting basics for beginners, credit scores, and retirement planning. 

The ideas themselves are no less relevant or creative than those Gemini gave us. Unlike Gemini, though, ChatGPT doesn’t suggest any different blog content formats. But this could be easily fixed by adding a follow-up prompt.

🚀 We also asked both tools for infographic ideas using this prompt:

“Suggest 5 creative infographic ideas targeting content marketing managers in B2B SaaS companies.”

Here’s Gemini’s output:

Gemini gives us a list of 5 unique ideas, including “The Content Marketing Periodic Table” and “The Content Marketing Escape Room.”

These ideas encourage creative thinking about visuals and formatting. We also like that each idea includes additional bullet points on how it could be fleshed out. 

But some of the ideas (e.g., Content Marketing Mad Libs) could potentially be less accessible to a general audience.

Here’s what ChatGPT responded with: 

ChatGPT's answer includes ideas such as “Anatomy of a High Converting SaaS Landing Page” and “Key Content Marketing Metrics for B2B SaaS.”

These ideas are still creative—but are much more informative and practical than innovative or quirky. 

💡 The outcome: Both tools make for great ideation partners in terms of relevant suggestions with widespread appeal. 

With ChatGPT, you may need to play around with the prompts to get what you need. 

On the other hand, Gemini seems to nail it on the first go. 

If you’re looking for quick ideas that go beyond the generic, Gemini comes out on top. 

6. ChatGPT Offers More Comprehensive Document Summaries 

To test Gemini’s and ChatGPT’s ability to summarize documents, we used the State of the Customer Experience report. It’s a comprehensive overview of current trends and insights in customer experience management. 

We asked both tools to:

• Summarize the main argument or thesis of the report
• Identify the key points and supporting evidence
• Extract useful stats from the piece

Here’s what Gemini gave us:

While Gemini provides a comprehensive overview of the report, its true strength lies in extracting impactful statistics. 

It cleverly groups these stats into categories such as customer experience preferences and predictive analytics market growth—reinforcing the report's key points. 

However, this separation of stats from the main summary makes it slightly less cohesive.

Let’s compare that to ChatGPT’s summary:

ChatGPT’s output is a lot more organized and easy to follow. It presents each key point as a clear argument, followed by specific supporting evidence—making the information more digestible. 

However, its selection of stats—while relevant—lacks the impact of Gemini's output.

💡 The outcome: Both tools delivered comprehensive summaries, but ChatGPT is better at providing a well-structured and organized overview of the document's main points (which is exactly what we asked for).

However, that’s not to say Gemini’s output is not useful. Gemini's ability to extract and categorize impactful stats still makes it a great tool for pinpointing key data points. 

7. ChatGPT Understands and Generates Structured Data More Coherently

To test how well Gemini and ChatGPT understand structured data, we gave them both this table of products.

We included this prompt:

“For the attached table, generate a new table with the following changes:

• Create a new column that calculates the total number of products in each category. 
• Add a new column "Description" for each product. 
• Generate a random description of 5-10 words for each product based on its name and category. 
• Split the products into three price ranges: Low (under $100), Medium ($100-$300), and High (above $300). Assign each product randomly to a price range and count the number of products in each range. 
• Categorize products as either "Portable" or "Non-Portable" based on product name. Products containing words like "Laptop", "Smartphone", "Watch", "Headphones", "Backpack" are considered portable. Count the number of products in each portability category.”

So, let’s look at Gemini’s table: 

Gemini did a decent job. 

But its descriptions were a bit unclear and convoluted, with a lot of random capitalization. 

For example, instead of saying "sleek and powerful laptop for professionals," it said "powerful Laptop to upgrade your efficiency in the Electronics category." 

By comparison, ChatGPT nailed it:

It made all the requested changes to the table, such as adding a "Description" column with clear and concise descriptions for each product. It also accurately categorized and counted the products. 

It even went a step further by allowing us to upload a CSV file directly into the chat.

💡 The outcome: Both tools incorporated all the requested changes and additions, but ChatGPT's output was more helpful and easier to understand.

Plus, its ability to directly process CSV files gives it an added advantage for folks working with structured data.

8. ChatGPT Can Generate Relevant AI Images

AI-generated images are a hot topic right now. While they’re often used to push creative boundaries, they are also sparking debates about authenticity and accuracy. 

In the past, Gemini could generate images. 

However, Google temporarily pulled the plug on this feature due to issues around accuracy. You can read more about their decision to press pause on image generation in their full statement. 

From what we can tell, they’re currently working on fixing these problems and plan to bring back an improved image generation tool. 

What about ChatGPT?

ChatGPT-4 uses DALL-E 3 to create images—one of OpenAI’s most sophisticated image generation tools. 

DALL-E 3 can generate detailed, high-quality images that incorporate complex elements such as text, hands, and faces. 

It's user-friendly and efficient, making it an excellent choice for content creators, marketers, and educators. You can iterate your images until you get the perfect look, which makes it a great tool for creating eye-catching visuals for campaigns or presentations.

On the flip side, you might find that you have less control over the process, since ChatGPT adjusts your prompts automatically. This can be a bit limiting if you’re aiming for highly specific or advanced design results.

We put ChatGPT to the test by asking it to create an image of a Poke bowl.

The result technically delivers on the brief, even if it is a bit cartoon-ish. It’s bold, colorful, and includes all the elements we asked for: salmon and vegetables in a poke-bowl style. 

It included a few things we didn’t ask for, such as tomatoes and avocado on the side. But the poke bowl itself is pretty accurate—even if, style-wise, it looks like something out of a Disney-Pixar film.  

🚀 Let’s look at another example. 

This time we gave the tool a prompt to “create a realistic image of a black cat with yellow eyes playing in green grass on a sunny day”. 

This image has the yellow eyes, green grass, and sunny day elements that we asked for—but this cat looks more like it’s relaxing than playing. We also specified that we wanted the image to be realistic, and this image looks even more like an illustration or cartoon.

It has hit the basics on relevancy but could do with some fine-tuning for a more realistic result. 

💡 The outcome: While Google reworks its image generation features, ChatGPT is your go-to for AI-generated images for now. It understands and executes creative prompts effectively, delivering fun and thematic visuals. 

That said, you might want to keep shopping around if you’re looking for something more advanced.

Gemini users will have to wait to see how it stacks up post-update.

9. Gemini Is a More Versatile Coding Tool

When it comes to coding, both Google Gemini and ChatGPT bring unique skills to the table.

Gemini's coding strengths: Gemini excels at multimodal reasoning, meaning it natively understands a mix of inputs: text, images, and audio. 

This capability allows it to seamlessly integrate diverse data types and contexts, tackling complex coding tasks with ease. 

Gemini also scores well on various coding benchmarks such as HumanEval and Natural2Code, which test a model’s code understanding and generation skills.

Where Gemini really shines, though, is in its versatility. 

Not only can it generate, understand, and explain code across popular programming languages (e.g., Python, Java, C++, and Go), it also supports around 20 programming languages—5 more than ChatGPT currently offers. These include languages such as Dart, GoogleSQL, Kotlin, and Lua.

ChatGPT's coding strengths: While Gemini is more versatile, ChatGPT-4 is generally considered to be the superior tool for writing code. Reddit users have reported much better results with ChatGPT-4—especially for Python, where it consistently outperformed Gemini in generating functional code. 

ChatGPT-4 also offers a more stable and reliable user experience. There have been fewer reports of ChatGPT refusing to answer questions or providing incomplete code—demonstrating that it is more dependable. 

💡 The outcome: If you need support with more complex coding tasks, Gemini is a better sidekick. But thanks to ChatGPTs reliable code-generation capabilities, it’s still the go-to for programming professionals the world over.  

10. Gemini is Better at Incorporating SEO Keywords Into Text

Using AI to integrate keywords into your content can be a game-changer—as long as the keywords flow naturally and enhance the overall message. 

To see how Gemini and ChatGPT handle this challenge, we asked them to update a long-form text about using Instagram for sales and traffic, and to weave in the following keywords: 

• sales funnel
• lead generation
• Instagram shop
• sponsored posts
• monetization strategies

Here’s the original text:

Gemini's approach: 

Gemini skillfully integrated the keywords into the existing content, maintaining the flow and tone of the original text. 

For example, it naturally connected "sales funnel" to the concept of turning followers into customers, and introduced "lead generation" while discussing a relevant report. 

Gemini also used the keywords to provide additional insights and actionable advice, such as using sponsored posts to reach new audiences.

Now let’s look at what ChatGPT gave us: 

ChatGPT's keyword integration feels forced and unnatural, especially in the last paragraph. 

It has crammed a bunch of keywords into a single paragraph in a way that feels out of place and overly sales-y. 

The tone of this added paragraph is more direct and promotional, clashing with the conversational style of the original content.

💡 The outcome: Gemini might not stack up as a best-in-class AI SEO tool, but if you want your content to rank high on Google without sounding like a robot, it’s your best option. Gemini knows how to sprinkle in those keywords without sacrificing readability. 

ChatGPT can get the job done, but it might need a little more finesse so those keywords don’t feel forced.

Using AI for Content Marketing and SEO

❗Note that neither of these AI chatbots can provide real-time SEO data on keywords or search intent. You can use them to perform basic tasks such as incorporating keywords you’ve already found, but neither tool can perform this task for you.

You’ll need to either use SEO tools like Semrush’s Keyword Magic Tool or opt for SEO-driven AI content tools like ContentShake AI.

ContentShake AI uses Semrush’s competitive data and ChatGPT’s AI to create content that ranks in search.

All you need to do is pick a content idea, select a few settings, and get a full SEO-rich article in a few minutes. 

11. ChatGPT Does Better at Understanding Complex Prompts

We’ve seen how Gemini and ChatGPT interpret short marketing and writing inputs. But what about when it comes to more complex prompts? 

We put both tools to the test with a more in-depth writing prompt that included: 

• a whiteprint detailing the desired structure and style, and 
• a transcript to use as source material.

Here’s the exact prompt we used:

“INSTRUCTIONS=I’m working on an article on sales compensation plans. Use the TRANSCRIPT to draft an H3 on using research and data to inform sales compensation plans. Use the WHITEPRINT to guide the writing style. Make it 200 words long.”

And for context, here’s the whiteprint we gave them: 

Let’s start off with Gemini’s response: 

Gemini really shines here, perfectly capturing the tone and style outlined in the whiteprint. It gave us clear, accessible content and a friendly, conversational voice.

However, because of Gemini's input limits, we had to break the prompt into two parts to fit everything in.

Now let’s look at ChatGPT:

ChatGPT really understands the main idea of the prompt and delivers spot-on insights and examples.

But it doesn’t stick to the whiteprint's style guide as closely as Gemini—its writing is a bit less conversational, and the paragraphs are longer, making the whole thing much less readable. 

🚀 Next, we gave them the following prompt: 

“You are an AI assistant helping a user plan a sustainable weekend trip to London. The user wants to visit at least 3 iconic landmarks, prioritize eco-friendly accommodations and transportation options, and experience local culture and cuisine. Provide a detailed itinerary, including specific destinations, transportation methods, accommodation suggestions, and cultural activities.”

With this prompt, we are testing each tool’s ability to:

• Understand and integrate multiple constraints/requirements (i.e., one weekend, 3 landmarks, eco-friendliness, cultural experiences)
• Demonstrate real-world knowledge of London’s landmarks, transportation options, and cultural activities
• Provide detailed and actionable recommendations

Here is what Gemini came up with: 

This time, Gemini misses the mark. It gives us two long lists: an accommodation list (including clickable links), and a list of landmarks. 

It has completely ignored our request for a clear weekend itinerary and left out any cultural activities. Also, it hasn’t focused its suggestions on sustainability at all.

Overall, it seems like it has picked out a few keywords from the prompt (e.g., sustainability, landmarks, accommodation, London, etc) and failed to process the rest. 

You’d have to input a follow-up prompt to get the sustainability-driven itinerary you asked for. 

Let’s look at ChatGPT: 

ChatGPT completely hits the brief on this one. 

It provides us with a detailed, 3-day itinerary, broken down into morning, afternoon, and evening. It has provided us with a mix of landmarks and cultural activities, along with a suggestion of where to stay—all with sustainability in mind. 

It has also provided us with some additional tips to help us get the most out of our trip. 

💡 The outcome: There are strengths and weaknesses on both sides here. But when it comes to more understanding of what you need, ChatGPT takes the crown. It’s much more likely to address every part of what you’ve asked for in its response. 

12. Gemini Seamlessly Integrates With Google, While ChatGPT Focuses on Built-In Capabilities

When it comes to playing well with other tools, Gemini and ChatGPT have taken different paths.

Gemini’s Google integration: If you're already a Google power user, Gemini is your new best friend. It seamlessly integrates with Google's suite of products and services, allowing you to:

• Create text in Google Docs
• Generate Google Sheets formulas
• Use Gemini in other Google Apps like Gmail and Calendar

Source: Google

ChatGPT's evolution from plugins to GPTs: ChatGPT initially offered plugins to extend its functionality. But as of March 2024, OpenAI has shifted its focus to GPTs (Generative Pre-trained Transformers). 

GPTs are standalone AI models with built-in capabilities such as browsing, Code Interpreter, and image generation with DALL-E. This transition offers a much more streamlined and user-friendly experience, as GPTs don't rely on external services to perform tasks.

There are custom GPTs for various tasks, from writing different types of text to conducting research and writing code.

ChatGPT Plus users can also create their own GPTs for any custom tasks. 

💡 The outcome: In this case, it all depends on your preferences. If you're deeply embedded in the Google ecosystem, Gemini's seamless integration might be the perfect fit. 

If you value a self-contained AI model with a range of built-in capabilities, ChatGPT could be more appealing.

13. ChatGPT Offers Free Access to the Latest Model, While Gemini Provides a Free Trial for its Paid Version

When it comes to pricing, both Gemini and ChatGPT offer different options to suit various needs and budgets.

Gemini's pricing: Gemini is available through several Google products, each with its own pricing structure:

• Gemini Pro: Gemini’s free version is available to anyone with a Google account and offers basic functionalities such as answering simple questions and summarizing text. 
• Gemini Code Assist: This offers subscriptions with monthly or yearly commitments, all billed monthly. 
• Google One: Gemini Advanced is included with the AI Premium plan of Google One, which costs $19.99 per month.

ChatGPT's pricing: ChatGPT keeps it simple with two plans:

• Free version: ChatGPT-4o offers powerful AI capabilities for casual users, with GPT-4-level features in text, vision, and upcoming voice features—albeit with usage limits. The free version provides access to the latest model, allowing even casual users to experience cutting-edge AI.
• ChatGPT Plus: This paid subscription plan costs $20 per month and provides priority access to all ChatGPT models, including GPT-4o, plugins, higher message limits, and custom GPTs. In other words, the paid plan offers an enhanced experience with additional benefits and no usage restrictions.

💡 The outcome: Both Gemini and ChatGPT offer both free and paid options. If you're looking for a completely free option, ChatGPT offers more variations depending on what you’re looking for. 

The free version provides a taste of the AI's capabilities, while the paid plan unlocks additional features and removes limitations.

However, if you're willing to invest in a paid plan, Gemini's free trial allows you to test out its advanced features before committing.

Ultimately, the best choice for you will depend on your specific needs and budget.

Best Alternatives to Gemini and ChatGPT

While Gemini and ChatGPT are leading the AI race, several other powerful contenders have emerged. 

Let's explore some of the top Gemini and ChatGPT alternatives:

• ContentShake AI by Semrush: ContentShake AI is designed to help you create high-ranking content faster, offering suggestions and optimization tips to boost your SEO game.
• Claude 3: This AI chatbot is superb at natural and extended interactions. It does a great job at writing human-sounding copy and performing various tasks. However, Claude is not connected to the web.
• Microsoft Copilot: If you're a Microsoft user, Copilot is a great choice. It seamlessly integrates with Microsoft products and services, offering features for content creation, research, and productivity. It also offers ChatGPT-4 and DALL-E 3 capabilities for free.
• Perplexity AI: This tool is a research powerhouse, providing accurate and reliable information from the web with cited sources—making it a great alternative to Google Search for in-depth exploration and fact-checking.
• GitHub Copilot: GitHub Copilot is a great coding companion for developers—generating code snippets, automating repetitive tasks, and helping you write better code faster.

Gemini vs. ChatGPT: Which is Better?

Gemini and ChatGPT are two of the most popular AI chatbots on the market, each with its own unique strengths and capabilities. 

But which one is the right fit for you? 

Let's break down the Gemini vs. ChatGPT debate:

Gemini:

If you need human-sounding copy, Gemini could be an ideal companion 

A lot of ChatGPT’s answers tend to be formal or robotic. But Gemini’s outputs are more natural, engaging, and full of personality. This makes it more suitable for marketing, creative writing, and so on. 

Plus, its deep integration with Google Workspace makes it a dream for those already working within the Google ecosystem.

ChatGPT:

For tasks that require precision and structure, ChatGPT is your dependable workhorse. 

It excels at tasks that require accuracy, analysis, and organization. While it may not win any awards for personality, it consistently delivers clear, concise, and informative responses.

💡 Are you looking for an AI tool to perform SEO and content marketing tasks? Remember, neither of these chatbots works well for creating long-form content and neither have access to data. 

Instead, use tools like Semrush’s ContentShake AI, which has been specifically designed for creating marketing content.