The Problem and the Fix
Without a skill
- Benchmark scores for LLMs measure academic tasks, not the weekly status updates, emails, and reports you write.
- Switching between 3 tools to test them wastes 2-3 hours without a structured comparison method.
- Most LLM reviews compare the models on coding tasks, even though 80% of professional AI use involves writing and analysis.
With aidowith.me
- Run a practical LLM comparison on your actual work task using a structured test method that produces a clear winner.
- Get a framework for choosing your default LLM by task type, not by one-size-fits-all recommendations.
- Build a repeatable workflow in your chosen LLM in 6 steps and under 30 minutes.
Who Builds This With AI
Managers & Leads
Reports, presentations, and team comms handled faster.
Ops & Analysts
Summaries, process docs, and structured output from messy inputs.
Marketers
Content, campaigns, and briefs done in hours instead of days.
How It Works
Pick your primary comparison task
Choose one task you do weekly, such as a status update, email draft, or meeting summary. This is your benchmark task.
Run the same prompt in 3 LLMs
Use an identical prompt in ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. Compare the outputs on tone, accuracy, and how much editing each one needs.
Pick your primary LLM and build a template
Choose the model that needed the least editing for your task. Build a reusable prompt template in that model for weekly use.
Find Your LLM and Build a Weekly Workflow
Start the Weekly Status Update route on aidowith.me. 6 steps, ~30 minutes, and you finish with a repeatable AI-assisted workflow in your best-fit LLM.
Start This Skill →What You Walk Away With
Pick your primary comparison task
Run the same prompt in 3 LLMs
Pick your primary LLM and build a template
Build a repeatable workflow in your chosen LLM in 6 steps and under 30 minutes.
"I compared ChatGPT and Claude on 5 real work tasks. Claude needed 30% less editing on my writing. Switched in a day."- Communications manager, healthcare organization
Questions
Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads on writing tasks that require a natural, non-corporate tone and on long-document work like summarization and editing. ChatGPT-4o performs well on structured outputs, data analysis prompts, and tasks that use integrations. For most professionals doing report writing, email drafting, and content creation, Claude edges out the competition on raw output quality. The best way to confirm this for your specific work is a 30-minute side-by-side test on your own recurring task.
Take one task you do every week and run the same prompt in ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. Compare the outputs: which one needed the least editing? Which sounded most like the tone you wanted? Which one got the structure right on the first try? That is your comparison method. Benchmarks measure things you will never do at work. Your own task is the only test that matters. The Weekly Status Update route on aidowith.me is a practical starting point for this comparison.
For most professional writing and analysis tasks in 2025, Claude 3.5 Sonnet and ChatGPT-4o are close, with Claude holding a slight edge on tone and writing naturalness. ChatGPT has stronger integration support and works better for tasks that involve browsing, image generation, or third-party plugins. The answer for your work depends on your specific tasks. Running both on your actual weekly content for one week is the most reliable comparison. The Weekly Status Update route on aidowith.me gives you a structured recurring task to test both on.