How Claude’s Deep Research Compares to Gemini and ChatGPT

Claude, the AI bot from Anthropic, may not grab as many headlines as ChatGPT, Gemini, or Copilot, but it may be the one that I turn to the most right now: It’s smart and thorough, with an attitude to its responses that often seems less robotic and sycophantic than the output you get with many of its rivals.

One of the latest features to roll out to Claude, and which you’ll already find inside bots from Google and OpenAI, is deep research—which Claude just calls Research. It’s like a supercharged web search, where you’ll get a detailed, lengthy report back rather than a few paragraphs. It’s suitable for research projects, as the name suggests, or any scenario where you need a deep dive into a subject.

Now, these AI models rely on whatever information is on the web. So their reports aren’t going to be as comprehensive if there’s very little material online about the topic you’re interested in. If there are resources to pull from, however, these deep research tools usually do a good job of collating it, and they always come with citations and web links so you can check their working.

At the time of writing, you need to be a paying Claude user (from $20 a month) to access the research tool. Just select the Research option on the prompt window, before typing out what you’d like the AI to look into. To test out the capabilities, I pitted it against similar features available in ChatGPT and Gemini to see how Claude would get on, using subjects I know something about (so I could more easily check for errors): the Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra and the works of David Lynch.

Researching the Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra

Claude Research hits a good balance between speed and depth.
Credit: Lifehacker

Here’s the prompt I used for the bots: “I need to know as much as possible about the Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra. What are its key specs and features? What has changed from the Galaxy S24 Ultra? How does it compare to the other Galaxy S25 models? What kind of users is it suitable for? What does it tell us about the state of the mobile industry in 2025?”

Claude jumped right into its research and had a report in seven minutes. It can show its thinking along the way, if you want to see it. The final document it presented was thorough and accurate, with links from the web embedded to back up everything that was written. It picked up on key points, like the AI software and the S Pen downgrade, but the text tended to be a bit generic and lacking in substance in places. It was the shortest of the reports, coming in at 1,200 words.

Gemini produced its report in the quickest time, a little ahead of Claude, while also writing the most—more than 5,500 words. I got a research plan to review and approve first, and then got detailed updates on where Gemini is up to as it scours the web. I found the finished research document to be quite detailed, even including processor timings and the date and location of the phone’s unveiling. It was also accurate and well referenced, as far as I could tell, though it did drift into Samsung marketing speak rather regularly.

ChatGPT started off by asking a few clarifying questions, then took more than twice as long as Claude and Gemini to produce a little over 5,100 words. This bot will show you the most detail in terms of activity as it works, though it’s hidden by default. What I got at the end was another well-researched, well-formatted, and accurate report, with a good choice of details—though Gemini offered a little more context. As with Gemini, ChatGPT had a tendency to just lift promotional phrases from Samsung’s own press releases, which isn’t necessarily what you’d want.

Researching David Lynch

Your finished report can be read inside Claude or exported.
Credit: Lifehacker

On to the world of David Lynch, and this time my prompt was: “I need a detailed research report into the film and TV works of David Lynch (I don’t need to know about his music or art in this case). Which works are considered the most influential? Which are his most celebrated and accessible works? What defines the David Lynch style? What impact has he had on the industry?”

Claude was again the fastest and the most succinct in its response, producing just under 1,200 words in a little over five minutes. It correctly picked out what are considered Lynch’s best works—and explained why—and the report did a good job of identifying movies and shows that have been influenced by Lynch. While not the most in-depth in terms of research, Claude produced a fine overview.

Gemini took a couple of minutes longer than Claude to produce close to 7,000 words on David Lynch, and again presented a research plan first. As with the Samsung report, Gemini added much more detail than Claude: an executive summary, a timeline of his career (complete with a table), and a comprehensive look at what “Lynchian” actually means—which was pretty much spot on, complete with quotes from the man himself. It would certainly be a comprehensive starting point if you were researching Lynch.

ChatGPT took a few more minutes than Gemini to file its copy, which stretched to nearly 8,000 words. Again, there were clarifying questions at the start, which seems to be obligatory. There was a detailed chronology, and the report did well at selecting Lynch works that were either celebrated or accessible to talk about, as well as picking out some more deep cuts and summarizing accurately what makes Lynch different—though it did seem to rely on a handful of sources too heavily.

The future of research

ChatGPT will show you all of its working as it goes.
Credit: Lifehacker

It’s difficult to pick a winner here, as there are so many variables, and when it comes to something like report length, it really depends on what you’re looking for. All the chatbots performed well at their research tasks, but if I was forced to choose, I’d take the Gemini reports: They just seemed slightly more detailed and well thought out than the others.

There’s no doubt there’s value in what AI search can do here, producing detailed and (apparently) accurate reports in minutes that might take an actual human hours. When the bots are in this mode, and forced to check their work, in theory there should be less chance of them fabricating facts. As far as I could tell, they chose respectable and authoritative websites as sources.

As this way of working becomes the norm, it does prompt two questions: First, what might happen to our abilities to research and collate information with our own brains (see also our abilities to summarize and write well)? Second, what is the end result of us all spending our time inside AI bots rather than on the open web?

If AI puts most of the websites its sourcing from out of business, then these tools will be much less useful. The bots will, for example, be left trying to sum up the works of David Lynch from Reddit and Wikipedia, rather than the writings of professional critics and interviews with people in the industry. This is one of the best applications of bots like Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT, but only because they’re able to draw from the vast library of content published online that they’re also putting in jeopardy.

Disclosure: Lifehacker’s parent company, Ziff Davis, filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in April, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.

Help Power Techcratic’s Future – Scan To Support

If Techcratic’s content and insights have helped you, consider giving back by supporting the platform with crypto. Every contribution makes a difference, whether it’s for high-quality content, server maintenance, or future updates. Techcratic is constantly evolving, and your support helps drive that progress.

As a solo operator who wears all the hats, creating content, managing the tech, and running the site, your support allows me to stay focused on delivering valuable resources. Your support keeps everything running smoothly and enables me to continue creating the content you love. I’m deeply grateful for your support, it truly means the world to me! Thank you!