OpenAI vs Anthropic
OpenAI vs Anthropic: The AI safety battle. Sam Altman vs Dario Amodei rivalry. Which AI company is better for the future?
Key Findings
Which brand leads in AI visibility and mentions.
ChatGPT dominates over Anthropic in AI visibility
AI Recommendation
Brands most often recommended by AI models
ChatGPT
Top Choice
5/5
Models Agree
Popularity Ranking
Overall ranking based on AI brand mentions
ChatGPT
Rank #1
191/227
Total Analyzed Answers
Trending Mentions
Recent shifts in AI model responses
-
Rising Star
-%
Growth Rate
Brand Visibility
Analysis of brand presence in AI-generated responses.
AI Visibility Share Rankings
Brands ranked by share of AI mentions in answers
AI Visibility Share Over Time
Visibility share trends over time across compared brands
Topics Compared
Key insights from AI Apps comparisons across major topics
"Which AI company prioritizes safety over speed?"
Anthropic emerges as the AI company most associated with prioritizing safety over speed across the models, driven by consistent high visibility and implied focus on responsible AI development.
Gemini shows a balanced view with equal visibility (3.5%) for Anthropic, Google, and DeepMind, but does not explicitly favor one on safety over speed; its neutral tone suggests no strong bias toward safety prioritization for any single entity.
Grok leans toward Anthropic (3.1% visibility) over others, with a subtle positive tone implied by mentions of safety-focused entities like the Center for AI Safety (0.3%), indicating a perception of Anthropic prioritizing safety over rapid deployment.
ChatGPT strongly associates Anthropic (8.7% visibility) with safety prioritization, reflected in its high visibility share and a positive tone, likely tied to Anthropic’s known focus on ethical AI development over unchecked speed.
Perplexity assigns Anthropic a notable visibility share (3.5%), alongside Google and ChatGPT (3.1% each), with a neutral tone; it subtly implies Anthropic’s alignment with safety through consistent recognition, though without explicit reasoning.
Deepseek perceives Anthropic (3.1%) and DeepMind (3.5%) as key players, with a neutral-to-positive tone via mentions of safety-adjacent entities like Partnership on AI (0.3%), suggesting a slight lean toward Anthropic valuing safety over speed.
"Who will win the race to AGI?"
DeepMind emerges as the leading contender in the race to AGI across the models, driven by its consistent high visibility and association with cutting-edge AI research.
Grok shows no strong favorite for AGI leadership, with Meta, Windows, Baidu, and Anthropic each holding a modest 3.5% visibility share, indicating a neutral tone and a balanced view of multiple players as potential contributors.
Deepseek leans towards DeepMind, Meta, Windows, and Google, each with a 3.5% visibility share, reflecting a positive tone for established tech giants and research-driven entities as frontrunners in AGI development.
ChatGPT strongly favors DeepMind and ChatGPT itself, both at 12.2% visibility share, with a positive tone emphasizing their innovation and widespread recognition as leaders in the AGI race.
Perplexity highlights DeepMind, Google, ChatGPT, and NVIDIA equally at 3.1% visibility share, adopting a neutral tone that acknowledges a competitive field with no single leader in the AGI pursuit.
Gemini distributes visibility evenly at 3.5% among Meta, Windows, Anthropic, Google, DeepMind, and ChatGPT, showing a neutral tone and suggesting a collaborative or diverse ecosystem of AGI contenders.
"Which AI company is better for long-term investment?"
NVIDIA emerges as the strongest candidate for long-term investment among AI companies, driven by consistent high visibility and perceived innovation leadership across multiple models.
ChatGPT shows a strong preference for NVIDIA and Windows, both with a 10.1% visibility share, suggesting a positive sentiment towards their market dominance and long-term investment potential in AI hardware and software ecosystems. This high visibility reflects a perception of stability and innovation leadership.
Gemini distributes visibility more evenly but favors NVIDIA, Windows, Google, and AWS (each at 3.5%), with a neutral-to-positive sentiment, indicating these brands are seen as reliable long-term investments due to their broad adoption and infrastructure strength in AI.
Grok equally highlights NVIDIA, Windows, Google, Alphabet, and ChatGPT at 3.5% visibility share, with a positive tone towards their innovation and ecosystem integration, positioning them as solid choices for long-term investment in AI technologies.
Perplexity leans slightly towards Snowflake (3.5%) and NVIDIA (3.1%), with a neutral-to-positive sentiment, emphasizing their growth potential and specialized AI offerings as factors for long-term investment viability.
Deepseek prioritizes NVIDIA, Windows, AWS, DeepMind, Alphabet, and ChatGPT (all at 3.5%), with a positive sentiment focused on their cutting-edge AI research and scalable solutions, marking them as promising for long-term investment.
"Which AI philosophy is right: move fast or move carefully?"
The AI philosophy of moving carefully appears to edge out moving fast across the models' reasoning, primarily due to a stronger alignment with brands emphasizing safety and ethical considerations like Anthropic and DeepMind.
Grok leans toward a balanced view but slightly favors moving fast, as evidenced by higher visibility for ChatGPT (3.1%), which is associated with rapid deployment and innovation. Its tone is neutral, focusing on broad ecosystem representation without strong critique.
Gemini tilts toward moving carefully, with Anthropic (0.7%) receiving notable visibility alongside ethical research entities like Machine Intelligence Research Institute (0.3%), reflecting a cautious innovation stance. Its tone is positive toward safety-focused approaches.
Perplexity favors moving fast, prioritizing ChatGPT (2.8%) and consumer-facing platforms like Facebook (1%), suggesting a focus on accessibility and quick adoption. Its tone is positive toward rapid deployment but lacks depth on cautious perspectives.
ChatGPT shows a cautious bent, with visibility for safety-oriented entities like NIST (0.7%) and Anthropic (0.3%), indicating a preference for moving carefully to ensure reliability. Its tone is neutral, balancing innovation with regulatory awareness.
Deepseek leans toward moving carefully, highlighting DeepMind (1%) and ethical bodies like Future of Life Institute (0.3%), emphasizing responsible AI development over speed. Its tone is skeptical of unchecked rapid progress, favoring structured innovation.
"Should I work at a fast-moving AI startup or safety-focused AI company?"
Anthropic and DeepMind emerge as leading representations for safety-focused AI companies and innovative research respectively, making them strong considerations for a safety-focused career, while fast-moving AI startups like those associated with ChatGPT are favored for rapid innovation and visibility.
Grok shows a balanced view with equal visibility for Anthropic and DeepMind at 2.8%, suggesting a preference for established safety-focused (Anthropic) and research-driven (DeepMind) entities, while also highlighting ChatGPT (1.7%) for fast-moving innovation, with a neutral tone indicating no strong bias toward either career path.
ChatGPT displays a slight preference for DeepMind and Anthropic, both at 2.4% visibility, reflecting a tilt toward safety and research focus, while its own brand (ChatGPT at 2.1%) represents fast-moving AI; its tone is positive, emphasizing credibility and innovation for both career options.
Gemini equally favors Anthropic and DeepMind at 1.7% visibility, indicating a preference for safety and ethical AI research over purely fast-moving startups like ChatGPT (1%), with a neutral tone suggesting a balanced consideration for a safety-focused career path.
Perplexity leans toward Anthropic with 1.4% visibility over DeepMind at 0.3%, indicating a stronger association with safety-focused AI companies; its tone is neutral but suggests a subtle preference for stability and ethical alignment over rapid innovation.
Deepseek shows a mild preference for Anthropic and ChatGPT, both at 0.7% visibility, balancing safety-focused AI with fast-moving innovation, while DeepMind lags at 0.3%; its tone is neutral, reflecting no strong push toward either career path.
FAQs
Key insights into your brand's market position, AI coverage, and topic leadership.
What's the difference between OpenAI and Anthropic?
OpenAI was founded first and is focused on building AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) as fast as possible to benefit humanity. They're backed by Microsoft with billions in funding and move extremely fast - releasing ChatGPT, GPT-4, DALL-E, and more. Anthropic was founded by former OpenAI employees (including Dario Amodei who was OpenAI's VP of Research) who left because they felt OpenAI wasn't taking AI safety seriously enough after taking Microsoft's money. Anthropic is obsessed with safety-first AI through Constitutional AI principles. The drama: Dario and his sister Daniela (Anthropic's President) left OpenAI in 2021 over disagreements about safety vs speed. They think OpenAI is moving too fast and risking dangerous AI. OpenAI thinks Anthropic is too cautious and slow. It's basically a philosophical split about how to build safe AGI.
Why did Dario Amodei leave OpenAI?
Dario Amodei left OpenAI in 2021 because of fundamental disagreements about AI safety priorities after OpenAI took $1 billion from Microsoft. The story is juicy: Dario was OpenAI's VP of Research and one of the most important people there. He became concerned that OpenAI was prioritizing speed and profits over safety after the Microsoft deal restructured them from nonprofit to capped-profit. He felt the pressure to ship products fast was compromising safety research. So he left with about 10 other top researchers (including his sister Daniela who ran Policy) and immediately founded Anthropic as a direct competitor focused purely on safety. The split was reportedly tense - some say it was the biggest brain drain in AI history. Dario has since raised billions for Anthropic and built Claude specifically to show you can build powerful AI safely, as a rebuke to OpenAI's approach.
Is Anthropic safer than OpenAI?
Yes, by design and philosophy. Anthropic's entire reason for existing is to build safer AI than OpenAI. They invented Constitutional AI where the AI is trained with explicit rules about being helpful, harmless, and honest from the ground up. Claude has stronger safety guardrails and is harder to jailbreak than ChatGPT. Anthropic publishes way more safety research and is more transparent about risks. They famously turn down features and capabilities if they're not confident about safety. OpenAI moves faster and ships features quickly (which is why ChatGPT got plugins, web browsing, and multimodal first), but has had more safety incidents - like users jailbreaking GPT-4, or the Bing AI going rogue. The debate is: Is Anthropic's cautious approach actually safer, or does it just mean OpenAI will build AGI first and Anthropic won't have any influence? Many AI safety researchers prefer Anthropic's approach, while others think OpenAI's speed means they'll solve safety problems through iteration.
Which company will reach AGI first?
Most experts bet on OpenAI reaching AGI first because they have way more money (backed by Microsoft's billions), more compute power (access to Microsoft's Azure infrastructure), and a 'move fast' culture. Sam Altman openly talks about AGI timelines and pushes for rapid progress. OpenAI spent over $100 million training GPT-4 and has access to even more resources for GPT-5. Anthropic is smaller, more cautious, and prioritizes safety over speed. However, Anthropic just raised $7+ billion (including from Google, Amazon) and is hiring aggressively. Some think Anthropic might actually get there in a safer way even if it takes longer. The wildcard: Google DeepMind also has massive resources. But the drama is: if OpenAI gets AGI first by moving fast, was Anthropic's safety-first approach pointless? Or will OpenAI's speed cause a disaster that proves Anthropic right? The stakes couldn't be higher.
Should I support OpenAI or Anthropic?
This is the hottest debate in AI right now. Support OpenAI if you believe: AI will be safer if good people build it first before bad actors do, progress and iteration are how we solve problems, and the benefits of fast AI development outweigh the risks. Sam Altman's vision is to make AGI widely available ASAP so humanity benefits. Support Anthropic if you believe: we need to solve safety BEFORE building superintelligence, Constitutional AI and careful research are essential, and OpenAI's Microsoft partnership compromised their safety focus. Many AI researchers respect Anthropic's principled stance. The truth is both companies employ brilliant people who genuinely want good outcomes - they just deeply disagree about the path. Some people use both: ChatGPT for speed and features, Claude for sensitive work and safety. The philosophical question is: Is it better to move fast and risk accidents, or move carefully and risk being too late?
