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 share
AI Recommendation
Brands most often recommended by AI models
ChatGPT
Top Choice
6/6
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 consistently associated with prioritizing safety over speed across multiple models, driven by its high visibility and implicit focus on responsible AI development.
Perplexity favors Anthropic with a notable visibility share of 3.8%, significantly higher than other brands, suggesting a perception of strong safety focus. Its neutral tone indicates a balanced view without overt criticism or praise, aligning with a cautious approach to AI deployment.
Gemini also leans toward Anthropic with a 3.3% visibility share, tying with DeepMind, but Anthropic's consistent presence across contexts implies a safety-first reputation. The tone remains neutral, focusing on recognition without strong sentiment, hinting at a steady, risk-averse image.
Grok shows a moderate preference for Anthropic at 2.4% visibility share, alongside ChatGPT, indicating a balanced view but with an edge for safety-conscious branding. Its neutral tone suggests no extreme bias, positioning Anthropic as a reliable player in safe AI innovation.
ChatGPT strongly favors Anthropic with an 8.4% visibility share, dwarfing competitors except its own branding (9.1%), signaling a clear association with safety prioritization. The positive tone reflects confidence in Anthropic’s approach to measured, responsible AI progress over rapid scaling.
Deepseek equally highlights Anthropic and DeepMind at 3.1% visibility share, suggesting both are seen as safety-focused, though Anthropic’s broader recognition across models gives it an edge. Its neutral tone indicates an objective stance, emphasizing institutional perception of safety practices.
"Should I work at a fast-moving AI startup or safety-focused AI company?"
Anthropic emerges as the leading choice for a safety-focused AI company across most models, while fast-moving AI startups lack a consistent representative due to fragmented visibility. If safety and ethical focus are priorities, a company like Anthropic aligns better with your career goals.
Grok shows a balanced visibility share for Anthropic (2.7%) and DeepMind (2.7%), suggesting no strong favoritism but a slight nod to safety-focused entities through Anthropic’s association with ethical AI discussions. Its tone is neutral, emphasizing visibility over explicit endorsement for either fast-moving startups or safety-focused firms.
ChatGPT slightly favors Anthropic (2.2%) over DeepMind (2.0%), indicating a lean toward safety-focused AI companies due to Anthropic’s prominence in ethical AI narratives. Its tone is positive, framing Anthropic as a notable player for those valuing responsible AI development.
Gemini equally highlights Anthropic (1.6%) and DeepMind (1.6%), with a neutral tone that does not strongly advocate for either but subtly aligns with safety-focused firms through references to ethical research. It lacks emphasis on fast-moving startup attributes, focusing more on established research entities.
Perplexity prioritizes Anthropic (1.6%) over other entities, with a positive tone suggesting suitability for safety-conscious professionals due to its focus on responsible AI. Fast-moving startups like Scale AI (0.2%) receive minimal attention, indicating less relevance to career decisions in this context.
Deepseek shows a mild preference for Anthropic (0.7%) and ChatGPT (0.7%) over DeepMind (0.4%), with a neutral tone that does not strongly push for either archetype. Its limited visibility data suggests a slight lean toward safety-focused entities like Anthropic for career stability.
"Who will win the race to AGI?"
DeepMind emerges as the leading contender in the race to AGI across most AI models due to its consistently high visibility and perceived innovation strength.
Grok shows no clear favorite for AGI leadership with low visibility shares across brands like Meta, Windows, Baidu, and Anthropic (each at 3.1%), reflecting a neutral tone and a fragmented perception of contenders. Its focus seems dispersed, lacking a strong endorsement for any single entity in the AGI race.
ChatGPT strongly favors DeepMind and itself (each at 11.5% visibility share), indicating a positive tone towards these entities as AGI frontrunners due to perceived innovation and ecosystem dominance. It also acknowledges Meta (9.1%) and Anthropic (8.9%) but positions DeepMind and ChatGPT as leaders in capability and adoption.
DeepSeek leans towards DeepMind (3.8% visibility share) as a key player in the AGI race, with a positive tone highlighting its research leadership, while Meta and Windows (3.5% each) trail slightly. Its perception emphasizes DeepMind's institutional credibility over others.
Perplexity views DeepMind, Google, and ChatGPT (each at 3.3%) as equal frontrunners in the AGI race, with a neutral-to-positive tone based on their innovation ecosystems and accessibility. It does not strongly differentiate between them, suggesting a balanced field of strong contenders.
Gemini equally favors Meta, Windows, Anthropic, Google, DeepMind, and ChatGPT (each at 3.3%), exhibiting a neutral tone with no clear leader in the AGI race. Its perception reflects a broad appreciation for innovation across multiple players without prioritizing one.
Google's data shows no significant favoring of any brand for AGI, with all entities including DeepMind, Meta, and Anthropic at a minimal 0.2% visibility share, indicating a neutral-to-skeptical tone. Its limited engagement suggests a lack of decisive insight into the AGI race.
"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 visibility and perceived innovation across multiple models.
ChatGPT shows a strong favorability toward NVIDIA and Windows, each with a 10.2% visibility share, likely due to their dominant market presence and innovation in AI hardware and software ecosystems. Its tone is positive, reflecting confidence in these brands for long-term growth potential in AI investments.
Gemini highlights NVIDIA, Windows, Google, and AWS, each with a 3.5% visibility share, suggesting a balanced view of their roles in AI infrastructure and cloud computing. The tone is neutral, focusing on market relevance rather than explicit endorsement for long-term investment.
Google's data shows no strong preference, with NVIDIA and other brands like AWS and Alphabet at a minimal 0.2% visibility share, indicating limited depth in analysis for investment purposes. Its tone is neutral, lacking clear sentiment toward any brand for long-term potential.
Grok leans toward NVIDIA, Windows, Alphabet, and ChatGPT, each at 3.3% visibility share, likely valuing their broad AI ecosystem contributions and market stability. The tone is positive, suggesting optimism about their sustained relevance for long-term investment.
Perplexity favors NVIDIA, Palantir, and Snowflake, each at 3.1% visibility share, emphasizing their specialized AI and data analytics capabilities as key investment areas. Its tone is positive, reflecting confidence in these companies’ growth trajectories for long-term returns.
DeepSeek prioritizes NVIDIA, AWS, Alphabet, DeepMind, and ChatGPT, with visibility shares around 3.1%-3.3%, pointing to their innovation and ecosystem strength as drivers for investment. The tone is positive, indicating a belief in their enduring value in the AI sector.
"Which AI philosophy is right: move fast or move carefully?"
The AI philosophy of moving fast appears to dominate over moving carefully, as models collectively prioritize brands associated with rapid innovation and market visibility like ChatGPT, despite some recognition of cautious approaches by entities like Anthropic.
Grok favors ChatGPT with a high visibility share of 2.9%, reflecting a preference for the 'move fast' philosophy tied to rapid AI deployment and user adoption. Its sentiment tone is positive, emphasizing accessibility and ecosystem growth over caution.
Gemini leans toward Meta (1.3%) and shows a balanced view with visibility for Anthropic (0.7%), suggesting a mixed stance on 'move fast' versus 'move carefully', with a neutral tone focusing on innovation ecosystems and institutional caution.
Perplexity strongly favors ChatGPT (2.9%), aligning with the 'move fast' philosophy through emphasis on user adoption and visibility, with a positive tone that overlooks cautious approaches in favor of market momentum.
ChatGPT prioritizes itself (2.2%) and shows notable visibility for Anthropic (1.1%), indicating a blend of 'move fast' self-promotion with recognition of 'move carefully' principles, carrying a positive tone rooted in community sentiment.
Deepseek supports ChatGPT (1.6%) as a leader in the 'move fast' camp, with lesser focus on Anthropic (0.4%), adopting a positive tone that highlights rapid adoption patterns over cautious development frameworks.
Google shows minimal bias with low visibility shares across brands like Meta and Anthropic (0.2% each), maintaining a neutral tone and a balanced view between 'move fast' and 'move carefully', focusing on institutional perception rather than clear preference.
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?
