
Big Tech AI vs Startups 2025: Google, Microsoft crushing OpenAI, Anthropic. Monopoly wars, acqui-hires, and the death of competition.
Which brand leads in AI visibility and mentions.
Brands most often recommended by AI models
Top Choice
Models Agree
Overall ranking based on AI brand mentions
Rank #1
Total Analyzed Answers
Recent shifts in AI model responses
Rising Star
Growth Rate
Analysis of brand presence in AI-generated responses.
Brands ranked by share of AI mentions in answers
Visibility share trends over time across compared brands
Key insights from AI Apps comparisons across major topics
Big Tech resources generally outweigh startup agility in AI development across the models, primarily due to higher visibility and perceived ecosystem dominance of established players like Google, Windows, and AWS.
Deepseek shows a balanced view with equal visibility shares for Big Tech giants like Windows, Google, and ChatGPT at 2.7%, indicating resource strength, but also acknowledges smaller players like HuggingFace (0.9%) for agility; its tone is neutral, focusing on broad representation.
ChatGPT leans toward Big Tech with higher visibility for Windows and Google at 8.4% each, suggesting resource-driven dominance, while startups like HuggingFace (3.9%) show notable but lesser impact; the tone is positive toward established ecosystems.
Perplexity slightly favors Big Tech with Google (3.4%) and Windows (3.2%) leading visibility, pointing to resource advantages, though startups like Mistral-7B (1.1%) hint at agility; its tone is neutral, reflecting a data-driven spread.
Gemini prioritizes Big Tech with Google (3.4%) and Windows (2.9%) dominating visibility, emphasizing resource and ecosystem scale over smaller players like Mistral-7B (0.5%); the tone is positive toward institutional strength.
Grok equally highlights Big Tech players like Google, Windows, and DeepMind at 2.3%, favoring their resource depth, while startups like Cohere (1.8%) show agility but less prominence; the tone is slightly positive toward established entities.
Big Tech companies, particularly Google and Windows, are perceived as having stronger visibility in AI ethics discussions compared to independent startups, due to their higher visibility shares and association with established ethical frameworks across most models.
Gemini shows a slight favor toward Big Tech with higher visibility shares for Google (2.9%) and Windows (2.9%) compared to startups like Anthropic (1.4%), reflecting a perception that larger firms have more established AI ethics presence. Its tone is neutral, focusing on visibility without explicit ethical judgment.
Deepseek leans toward Big Tech, with Google (2.7%) and Windows (2.7%) dominating visibility over startups like EleutherAI (0.5%), suggesting a belief in Big Tech’s greater influence in shaping AI ethics norms. The tone remains neutral, emphasizing exposure rather than explicit ethical superiority.
ChatGPT strongly favors Big Tech, with significant visibility for Google (7.3%), Windows (7.3%), and ChatGPT itself (6.3%) over smaller entities like Stable Diffusion (1.8%), indicating a perception that larger entities drive AI ethics conversations. Its tone is positive toward Big Tech, likely due to their scale and public accountability.
Perplexity tilts toward Big Tech, with Windows (3.2%) and Google (2.3%) overshadowing startups like HuggingFace (0.2%), pointing to a perception of greater ethical scrutiny and resources in larger firms. The tone is neutral, focusing on visibility metrics without deep ethical commentary.
Grok shows balanced visibility between Big Tech (Google and Windows at 2.5% each) and some startups like Anthropic and HuggingFace (2% each), suggesting a nuanced view where both sides contribute to AI ethics, though Big Tech still edges out. Its tone is neutral to slightly positive, highlighting collaborative potential in ethical discussions.
Working at Big Tech AI companies is generally favored over AI startups due to higher visibility, stability, and resource availability across most models.
Gemini leans toward Big Tech AI companies like Google and Windows, each with a 2.7% visibility share, due to their established ecosystems and resource depth, reflecting a positive sentiment tone. AI startups like FPT.AI (0.2%) are barely visible, indicating lower perceived impact or career growth potential.
Deepseek shows a slight preference for Big Tech AI with Google, Windows, and ChatGPT each at 1.8% visibility share, suggesting stability and name recognition, with a neutral-to-positive tone. No significant mention of startups implies limited relevance or impact in career contexts.
ChatGPT strongly favors Big Tech AI, with Google at 7.3% and Windows at 7% visibility share, emphasizing their dominant market presence and innovation ecosystems, reflecting a positive sentiment tone. Smaller players or startups are largely overlooked, indicating weaker career appeal.
Grok balances visibility between Big Tech AI like Google, Windows, and ChatGPT (each at 2.3%) and smaller players like Scale AI (0.5%), showing a neutral tone with interest in startup innovation but acknowledging Big Tech's stability for career paths. It suggests Big Tech offers broader exposure while startups provide niche opportunities.
Perplexity favors Big Tech AI with Google, Windows, and ChatGPT each at 2.7% visibility share, highlighting their robust ecosystems and industry influence, with a positive sentiment tone. Startups receive minimal focus, suggesting limited perceived career advantages compared to established firms.
Big Tech AI stocks are generally favored as a better investment over AI startups due to their established market presence, higher visibility, and perceived stability across most models.
Gemini leans towards Big Tech AI stocks, with significant visibility shares for giants like NVIDIA (2.9%), Google (2.9%), and AWS (2.9%), reflecting a positive sentiment on their market dominance and innovation capacity. AI startups or smaller entities like Built In (0.2%) have negligible presence, suggesting limited confidence in their investment potential.
ChatGPT strongly favors Big Tech AI stocks, highlighting high visibility for Windows (10%), Google (9.5%), and AWS (7.5%), with a positive tone emphasizing their ecosystem strength and adoption scale. Startups are barely mentioned, indicating a neutral to skeptical view of their investment viability compared to established players.
Perplexity shows a preference for Big Tech AI stocks, with Windows (3.4%) and AWS (3.2%) leading in visibility, and a neutral-to-positive tone focused on their proven scalability and institutional backing. AI startups like Databricks (0.2%) receive minimal attention, signaling skepticism about their short-term investment value.
Deepseek slightly favors Big Tech AI stocks, with visibility for Windows (3.2%) and NVIDIA (2.9%), and a neutral tone reflecting their reliable infrastructure and market traction. However, mentions of startups like Scale AI (0.2%) suggest a mild openness to niche innovation, though not as a primary investment focus.
Grok presents a balanced view but leans towards Big Tech with visibility for NVIDIA (2.7%) and Google (2.7%), maintaining a neutral-to-positive tone on their innovation leadership. It uniquely highlights AI startups like Anthropic (2.3%) and Cohere (1.4%), showing a more optimistic sentiment towards their disruptive potential compared to other models.
Big Tech appears to have a stronger edge in building better AI compared to startups, driven by higher visibility and perceived innovation capacity across most models.
ChatGPT favors Big Tech, with high visibility shares for Google (9.8%), Windows (9.5%), and Meta (7.5%), reflecting a perception of superior resources and ecosystem dominance for AI development. Its tone is positive toward Big Tech, while startups like Mistral-7B (3.6%) and HuggingFace (3.2%) are acknowledged but less emphasized.
Perplexity shows a balanced view but leans slightly toward Big Tech with Google (2.9%), Windows (2.9%), and Meta (2.7%) having notable visibility, suggesting trust in established infrastructure for AI innovation. Its tone is neutral, giving some recognition to startups like Anthropic (1.4%) and Mistral-7B (1.8%), but without strong advocacy.
Grok has a balanced perspective but slightly favors Big Tech with Google, Meta, and Windows each at 2.5%, hinting at confidence in their AI scalability and integration capabilities; the tone remains neutral. Startups like Anthropic and Cohere (both at 2%) receive attention for niche innovation but lack the broader impact attributed to Big Tech.
Gemini leans toward Big Tech, emphasizing Google (2.7%) and AWS (2.7%) as leaders in AI development due to their robust platforms and adoption patterns; the tone is positive for these entities. Startups like Anthropic (1.6%) and HuggingFace (0.7%) are noted but perceived as secondary players in the AI landscape.
DeepSeek shows a clear preference for Big Tech, with Google (3.2%), AWS (3.2%), and Windows (2.7%) dominating visibility, signaling trust in their computational power and research depth for AI; the tone is positive. Startups are underrepresented, with minimal focus beyond mentions like TensorFlow (0.7%), indicating limited impact perception.
Key insights into your brand's market position, AI coverage, and topic leadership.
Absolutely yes, and it's accelerating. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta control: the cloud infrastructure AI runs on, the chips AI trains on, the data AI learns from, the distribution channels, and billions in capital. Microsoft's $13B investment in OpenAI means they effectively control 'independent' OpenAI. Google has DeepMind and Gemini. Amazon backs Anthropic. Meta releases Llama to undercut everyone. Small AI startups can't compete - they need Big Tech's cloud, chips, and money to survive. Every promising AI startup either gets acquired, takes Big Tech investment (losing independence), or dies. The pattern: Big Tech lets startups do risky R&D, then acquires or copies successful innovations. Regulators are investigating but moving slowly.
Training cutting-edge AI models costs $100M-1B+ and requires massive compute (thousands of GPUs), which only Big Tech can provide. Startups face an impossible equation: you need millions in revenue to afford compute, but you need compute to build products that generate revenue. Big Tech solves this by: offering cloud credits in exchange for equity, providing compute at discount for strategic partnerships, or just acquiring the startup. The dependency is total. Even 'independent' OpenAI runs on Microsoft Azure. Anthropic uses Google and Amazon cloud. No AI startup can scale without becoming dependent on Big Tech infrastructure. This gives Big Tech leverage to extract favorable terms or kill competition.
Big Tech identifies promising AI startups, acquires them for talent while killing the product. Recent examples: Google acquired Character.AI's team but not the product. Microsoft hired Inflection AI's founders and most of their team, effectively killing the company. Amazon hired Adept AI's key people. The strategy: instead of outright acquisition (which triggers antitrust scrutiny), Big Tech offers founders and key engineers huge packages to 'join' while letting the startup die. It's cheaper than acquisition and avoids regulatory problems. For founders, it's often the best exit - getting paid $100M+ while avoiding the stress of competing. For competition, it's devastating - every promising startup gets absorbed before threatening Big Tech.
Nearly impossible with current economics. The few attempting independence: open source projects like Hugging Face (but they still use Big Tech cloud), AI chip startups like Cerebras and Groq (but they need massive capital), and small specialized AI companies serving niche markets. Most fail or get acquired. The problem is structural: AI has massive economies of scale. Bigger models with more data and compute win. Only Big Tech has resources to compete at the frontier. Startups must either: find a profitable niche Big Tech ignores, go open source and hope for community support, or accept Big Tech investment/acquisition. True independence requires billions in capital and a decade to build infrastructure. No VC has that patience.
Maybe, but not soon enough to save current startups. US DOJ is investigating Google and Microsoft's AI deals. EU is scrutinizing Microsoft-OpenAI and Amazon-Anthropic relationships. UK blocked Microsoft-Activision over AI concerns. However, antitrust cases take 5-10 years and Big Tech has armies of lawyers. By the time regulators act, the damage is done - Big Tech will have absorbed the competition. The political problem: governments want their country's tech giants to lead globally. Breaking up Google might help Chinese or European competitors. Some politicians prioritize American AI dominance over domestic competition. The likely outcome: regulations that look tough but don't fundamentally change Big Tech's AI dominance. Some fines, some restrictions, but the monopoly continues.