Grok

Well, one is definitely owned by a fascist... More on reddit.com

Grok is faster, more up-to-date, more objective, less restrictive, generous in output, and has an excellent stock personality (e.g., neither sycophantic nor aloof). It's weaker in programming right now (although still good), although Gemini is often better than CGPT for coding. I have subscriptions to both Grok and OpenAI, and used to be Pro plan user of ChatGPT, but use Grok 90% of the time now (its image gen is not competitive however). More on reddit.com

I've been using Grok a lot lately, even though I was a long-time ChatGPT user. What really stands out to me is how different Grok's approach feels—it doesn't just give answers but engages more like a guide. When working through a problem, it provides a sense of progress, almost like a collaborator saying, "Hey, we’re getting somewhere!" ,"That's a victory" or "Nice achievement!" And "We are making progress". It makes the interaction more dynamic and motivating. Also, Thinking Mode and Research Mode are seriously impressive. The way Grok handles deeper problem-solving feels more intuitive compared to other AIs I’ve used. Definitely enjoying the switch!!🥳 More on reddit.com

My experience with Grok 3 (Supergrok) and ChatGPT (Pro tier, the $200 one) are actually the opposite. The "Deep Research" functionality in ChatGPT is very powerful, even if it takes a long time. I did side-by-side evaluation with identical prompts and ChatGPT did a better job. The fact that it asks follow-up questions is a great plus. Regarding writing an article, just today I was helping a relative who is a neuroscientist to write a scientific article that summarizes several publications. It took several attempts to get the right prompt, but Grok 3 did a great job of generating an article with the appropriate depth and insight. What I liked most was that the text structure was very human-like; by that I mean the paragraphs were long and the topic of each paragraph was explored in depth. Note that I had set /mode analytical in the prompt. ChatGPT on the other hand generated a much more AI-like text; the paragraphs were shorter and there were too many bullet lists and numbered lists, and too many sections. While this is appropriate for some situations, it doesn't suit a scientific overview article of a complex topic. Since I've already paid for both subscriptions, I will be using ChatGPT's Deep Research to gather links to sources and then use Grok to analyse and summarize them. To me that's the optimal approach. More on reddit.com