GPT vs Claude for Business: An Honest Comparison

"Should we use GPT or Claude?" is one of the most common questions we get. After building production systems with both, here's the honest answer.

The Short Version

For most business applications, the differences are smaller than you think. Both are excellent. Pick based on:

• Existing infrastructure: Already on Azure? Use GPT. AWS? Consider Claude.
• Specific strengths: Long documents? Claude. Function calling? GPT.
• Cost at scale: Do the math for your specific use case.

Where GPT-4 Wins

Function calling and tool use. GPT's function calling is more mature and reliable. If you're building agents that need to call APIs, start here.

Ecosystem and integrations. More third-party tools, more tutorials, more community support.

Multimodal capabilities. GPT-4V handles images well. Useful for document processing and visual analysis.

Where Claude Wins

Long context. Claude handles 100K+ tokens natively. For processing long documents or maintaining conversation history, it's unmatched.

Following complex instructions. In our experience, Claude is better at following detailed system prompts with many constraints.

Writing quality. For content generation, Claude tends to produce more natural, less "AI-sounding" text.

Where It Doesn't Matter

For standard chat applications, Q&A systems, and most business use cases, both perform comparably. Don't overthink it.

Our Recommendation

Start with one. Build your prototype. Measure performance on your specific use case. The best model is the one that works for your data.

We're model-agnostic. We'll recommend whatever fits your needs—even open-source models like Llama or Mistral when they make sense.

The Real Question

The model matters less than:

1. How well you've structured the problem
2. The quality of your prompts and data
3. How you handle edge cases and errors

Get these right, and any modern LLM will serve you well.

Want help choosing? We'll assess your use case and recommend the right approach—no vendor lock-in agenda.