DeepSeek vs. ChatGPT vs. Claude – Or None of Them? 

Key Takeaways
  • DeepSeek, Claude, and ChatGPT are all very capable AI chatbots.
  • ChatGPT is still the leader, but DeepSeek is making inroads.
  • Both DeepSeek and ChatGPT are better suited to shorter tasks, while Claude excels at in-depth, naturalistic responses.

Since it exploded onto the market, the AI chatbot world has truly diversified, with ChatGPT now sharing the spotlight with some stiff competition.

DeepSeek made massive waves with its open-source code and easy accessibility, leading many to wonder if OpenAI’s market share was just a little too inflated. Claude is another strong contender with its in-depth and more naturalistic responses to queries.

We’ll be looking at all three chatbots – DeepSeek vs. ChatGPT vs. Claude – and the particular areas where they shine.

DeepSeek vs. ChatGPT vs. Claude – Performance Breakdown

DeepSeek vs. ChatGPT vs. Claude 1

The best way to compare these three Large Language Models (LLMs) is by looking at the key areas where they excel and differ. Here are some of the major ones:

Market Share

Despite the rising competition, ChatGPT is still by far and away the most popular tool on the market. Claude, on the other hand, is the least popular in terms of market share, but it has seen steady growth. DeepSeek, though new, is quickly on the rise, though distrust of the Chinese company and the relative newness of the product are slowing things down.

Language Models

ChatGPT is generally considered to be an LLM, though some restrict the use of that term to its different iterations that are powered by LLMs, such as GPT-4o. Anthropic’s Claude runs off Claude Opus, while DeepSeek uses two models: the logic-focused R1 and speed-oriented V3.

All bots offer real-time data access in their responses, but ChatGPT restricts this to its paid subscribers only.

Hallucinations

AI’s advances have always been underpinned by their persistent inclination toward hallucination. No AI is yet free from making up data and fudging facts, but great strides have been made in reducing their frequency to create the best AI chatbot. Creative AI bots like Claude struggle more with this than ChatGPT or DeepSeek.

In fact, DeepSeek’s focus on reasoning and tech accuracy ensures that it’s the least likely of the three to hallucinate.

Price

All three models are free to use. That said, only DeepSeek is free for all users, provided an account is created. ChatGPT and Claude offer free versions but hide some of their most advanced functions and features behind a monthly or annual subscription.

At the paid level, ChatGPT is the more expensive of the two at $20 for Pro and $25 for Team plans. Claude is a flat $20 for the Advanced tier. Both have Enterprise options available for larger groups and companies.

Where Each Model Shines

DeepSeek vs. ChatGPT vs. Claude 2

Of course, all three AI chatbots are very competent at their jobs. That said, they all have their own area where they shine. Let’s take a look:

  • Concise responses – DeepSeek’s V3 LLM excels at getting straight to the point, sacrificing detail for brevity. ChatGPT is a close runner-up, while Claude’s detailed responses lag far behind.
  • Response time – Both ChatGPT and DeepSeek beat Claude with their speed, but ChatGPT seems to be the more consistent winner in this department.
  • Image analysis – Claude is fantastic at analyzing images, being more thorough and intuitive than the other two.
  • Coding – DeepSeek demonstrates the best speed at writing code, but ChatGPT still offers the best results for detailed explanations and complex implementation.
  • Creative writing – One of Claude’s biggest selling points is its natural writing and tone. It excels at writing everything from prose to poetry when compared with the others.
  • Logical reasoning – DeepSeek, for better and worse, puts a greater emphasis on logical reasoning than the other two, though Claude goes a long way in explaining underlying reasoning in its responses.

Disclaimer: Some pages on this site may include an affiliate link. This does not effect our editorial in any way.