The AI model landscape in 2026 looks nothing like it did even a year ago. We have gone from a world where ChatGPT was the obvious default to a genuinely competitive field where four models — each with distinct strengths — serve different audiences and workflows. If you are trying to decide which AI tool to invest your time in learning, or which to recommend to your team, this comparison is designed to give you an honest, practical answer.
I use all four of these models regularly in my training sessions, development work, and content creation. I have no sponsorship or affiliation with any of them. What follows is based on months of daily use across real projects — not benchmark scores on academic datasets.
Quick Overview of Each Model
Gemma 4 (Google)
Google's open-weight model, available in multiple sizes (4B, 12B, 27B parameters). Runs entirely on your own hardware through tools like Ollama and LM Studio. Free to use, free to fine-tune, and free to deploy commercially. No data leaves your machine. The trade-off is that you need decent hardware (a GPU with at least 8GB VRAM for usable performance) and some technical setup. For a full walkthrough on getting started, see my guide to running Gemma 4 locally.
ChatGPT / GPT-4o (OpenAI)
The most widely used AI assistant, powered by GPT-4o. Available through a web interface, mobile apps, and API. Free tier with usage limits; ChatGPT Plus at $20/month removes most caps and adds features like Code Interpreter, file uploads, and image generation. Strongest at complex reasoning, multi-step analysis, and tasks requiring large context windows. Cloud-based — your prompts are processed on OpenAI's servers.
Claude (Anthropic)
Anthropic's model, known for producing exceptionally natural, well-structured writing and strong code generation. Available through claude.ai and API. Free tier available; Pro plan at $20/month. Claude's extended thinking capability makes it particularly strong for complex analytical tasks. Also cloud-based, with Anthropic's privacy commitments. I have written extensively about using Claude for Excel formulas and Claude's agent mode for Excel.
Microsoft Copilot
Microsoft's AI assistant, integrated directly into Microsoft 365 apps (Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Outlook). Built on OpenAI's models but with native integration into the Microsoft ecosystem. Copilot for Microsoft 365 requires a business licence ($30/user/month on top of M365). The standalone Copilot chat is free with limited features. Its unique advantage is working directly inside Excel, Word, and other Office apps without copy-pasting between windows.
Comparison 1: Code Generation and Debugging
I tested all four models with the same coding tasks: writing a Python web scraper, generating a REST API endpoint in Node.js, debugging a React component with a state management issue, and writing a VBA macro for Excel.
Claude consistently produced the cleanest, most idiomatic code across all languages. Its output required the least editing before being production-ready. Error handling, type annotations, and documentation comments were included by default without having to ask.
ChatGPT was a close second. It generated correct code quickly and handled follow-up refinements well. Its Code Interpreter feature adds a unique advantage — it can actually execute Python code and show you the results, which is invaluable for debugging.
Gemma 4 (27B) handled straightforward coding tasks competently. Simple functions, standard patterns, and well-defined algorithms came out correct. Where it struggled was with complex multi-file architectures and less common frameworks. For a deeper look at using Gemma 4 for coding, see my VS Code integration guide.
Copilot excels within its native environment — inline code suggestions in VS Code are smooth and contextually aware. For standalone code generation tasks outside the editor, it is less flexible than ChatGPT or Claude.
Ranking: Claude > ChatGPT > Gemma 4 > Copilot (for standalone generation). For in-editor assistance: Copilot > Claude > ChatGPT > Gemma 4.
Comparison 2: Writing and Content Creation
I asked each model to write a product description, a technical blog section, a professional email, and a marketing landing page paragraph.
Claude produced the most natural, human-sounding writing consistently. Its prose avoids the formulaic patterns that make AI-generated content feel generic. It understood tone, audience, and purpose with minimal prompting.
ChatGPT produced good writing but with more recognisable AI patterns — slightly overusing transition phrases and occasionally defaulting to a more generic tone. With careful prompting, it can match Claude's quality, but it requires more direction.
Gemma 4 produced adequate writing for most purposes. Technical content was generally accurate and clear. Creative and marketing writing was noticeably more formulaic than the cloud models. The 27B version was substantially better than the 12B for writing quality.
Copilot is capable but tends toward corporate-safe language. Its strength is in document-level tasks within Word — summarising, reformatting, and expanding existing content rather than generating from scratch.
Ranking: Claude > ChatGPT > Gemma 4 > Copilot.
Comparison 3: Data Analysis and Spreadsheet Work
This is the category I test most thoroughly, given my focus on AI-assisted Excel training. I ran identical spreadsheet tasks across all four models: formula generation, data cleaning strategies, pivot table design, VBA macros, and chart recommendations.
ChatGPT leads this category, particularly because of Code Interpreter. You can upload a spreadsheet, ask questions about it, and get analysis with visualisations — all without writing a single formula. For formula generation specifically, GPT-4o is highly accurate.
Claude is excellent at formula generation and VBA writing. Its explanations of complex formulas are the clearest of any model. However, it lacks a file upload and execution feature comparable to Code Interpreter. My detailed walkthrough of Claude for Excel macros shows what it can do.
Gemma 4 handles standard formula generation well and has the crucial advantage of data privacy — your spreadsheet data stays on your machine. For a detailed comparison of Gemma 4 versus ChatGPT specifically for spreadsheet work, see my dedicated data analysis comparison.
Copilot has the unique advantage of working directly inside Excel. You can highlight a range, ask a question in natural language, and get a formula inserted into your sheet. The friction is the lowest of any option. The limitation is that it is only available to Microsoft 365 business subscribers.
Ranking: ChatGPT > Claude > Copilot (within Excel) > Gemma 4. For privacy-sensitive data: Gemma 4 > all others.
Comparison 4: Privacy and Data Control
This is where Gemma 4 stands apart from every competitor, and it is not a minor consideration.
Gemma 4 runs entirely on your local hardware. Nothing — not your prompts, not your data, not your code — ever leaves your machine. For organisations subject to GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2, or internal data governance policies, this is often the deciding factor. There is no terms-of-service debate about whether your data might be used for training.
ChatGPT processes all inputs on OpenAI's servers. OpenAI offers options to opt out of training data usage, and enterprise plans provide stronger guarantees, but the data does leave your infrastructure. For sensitive financial, medical, or legal data, this creates compliance questions that many organisations cannot easily resolve.
Claude has similar cloud-based processing through Anthropic's infrastructure. Anthropic's privacy commitments are generally well-regarded, and they do not use API inputs for training by default. But the data still travels to external servers.
Copilot for Microsoft 365 Business operates within Microsoft's cloud infrastructure, which many enterprises already trust for their data. If your organisation is already on Azure and M365, Copilot inherits those existing trust boundaries. This is a meaningful advantage for enterprise adoption.
Ranking: Gemma 4 (fully local) > Copilot (within existing M365 trust) > Claude > ChatGPT.
Comparison 5: Cost and Accessibility
| Model | Free Tier | Paid Plan | Annual Cost (Individual) | Annual Cost (10-Person Team) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gemma 4 | Fully free, unlimited use | N/A (hardware cost only) | $0 | $0 (shared server) to $500 (dedicated GPU) |
| ChatGPT | Yes, with usage limits | Plus: $20/month; Team: $25/user/month | $240 | $3,000 |
| Claude | Yes, with usage limits | Pro: $20/month; Team: $25/user/month | $240 | $3,000 |
| Copilot | Basic chat only | M365 Copilot: $30/user/month | $360 | $3,600 (on top of M365 licence) |
The cost differences become dramatic at team scale. A 50-person organisation paying for ChatGPT Team would spend $15,000 per year. Gemma 4 on a shared GPU server would be a one-time hardware investment of $2,000-5,000 with no recurring costs. For a deeper look at where free models match paid alternatives, see my article on tasks where Gemma 4 beats paid AI models.
Comparison 6: Customisation and Fine-Tuning
Gemma 4 is fully open-weight, meaning you can fine-tune it on your own data, modify its behaviour, and deploy custom versions for specific tasks. If you have a domain-specific need — such as training a model on your company's proprietary spreadsheet templates or coding standards — Gemma 4 is the only option in this comparison that gives you complete control.
ChatGPT offers custom GPTs and fine-tuning through the API, but you are working within OpenAI's infrastructure and constraints. Custom GPTs are useful for creating specialised assistants, but you do not have access to the underlying model weights.
Claude does not currently offer fine-tuning for individual users. You can shape its behaviour through system prompts and conversation context, but deep customisation is not available outside enterprise agreements.
Copilot can be extended through Microsoft's plugin ecosystem and Graph connectors, allowing it to access internal data sources. This is a different kind of customisation — not modifying the model, but expanding what data it can access.
Ranking: Gemma 4 (full control) > ChatGPT (API fine-tuning) > Copilot (plugin ecosystem) > Claude (system prompts only).
Master Comparison Table
| Feature | Gemma 4 | ChatGPT (GPT-4o) | Claude | Copilot |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Code generation | Good | Very good | Excellent | Good (in-editor) |
| Writing quality | Adequate | Good | Excellent | Adequate |
| Data analysis | Good | Excellent | Very good | Good (native Excel) |
| Excel formula generation | Good | Excellent | Excellent | Very good |
| VBA / macro writing | Good | Excellent | Excellent | Good |
| Privacy / data control | Excellent (local) | Adequate (cloud) | Good (cloud) | Good (M365 trust) |
| Cost | Free | Free tier / $20 mo | Free tier / $20 mo | $30/user/mo |
| Offline capability | Yes | No | No | No |
| File upload / analysis | No | Yes (Code Interpreter) | Yes (limited) | Yes (native) |
| Fine-tuning / customisation | Full (open weights) | API fine-tuning | System prompts only | Plugins / connectors |
| Context window | Moderate (model-dependent) | Large (128K tokens) | Very large (200K tokens) | Large (128K tokens) |
| Multimodal (images) | Yes (Gemma 4 supports vision) | Yes | Yes | Yes |
My Recommendations by Use Case
For Developers
Use Claude as your primary coding assistant for its clean output and strong reasoning. Supplement with Gemma 4 in VS Code through Continue or similar extensions for inline completions that keep your code local — see my Gemma 4 VS Code setup guide. Use ChatGPT when you need Code Interpreter to test and visualise quickly.
For Business Analysts
Start with ChatGPT for data analysis tasks — Code Interpreter is a game-changer for ad-hoc analysis. Use Gemma 4 when working with sensitive or proprietary data. If your company has Microsoft 365 Business, Copilot inside Excel reduces friction significantly. For more on AI tools for analysts, see my comprehensive Excel AI comparison.
For Writers and Content Creators
Use Claude as your primary writing tool. Its prose quality is noticeably superior. Use ChatGPT for research, fact-checking, and brainstorming. Gemma 4 is adequate for drafts but rarely the best choice for polished writing.
For Students
Gemma 4 is the clear recommendation. It is completely free, has no usage caps, and running it locally teaches you about AI infrastructure — a valuable skill in itself. Supplement with the free tiers of ChatGPT and Claude for tasks where you need their extra capability.
For Enterprise Teams
The answer is usually a combination. Copilot for day-to-day productivity within Microsoft 365. Gemma 4 (self-hosted) for privacy-sensitive and high-volume tasks. ChatGPT Team or Claude Team for advanced analysis and content work. The mix depends on your industry's compliance requirements and existing technology stack.
Honest Verdict: No Single Model Wins Everything
If someone tells you one AI model is the best at everything, they are either selling something or have not used the alternatives seriously. Here is the reality as I see it after extensive daily use of all four:
- Best for code: Claude, with ChatGPT a close second
- Best for writing: Claude, noticeably ahead of the field
- Best for data analysis: ChatGPT, thanks to Code Interpreter
- Best for privacy: Gemma 4, no contest
- Best for cost: Gemma 4, completely free
- Best for enterprise integration: Copilot within Microsoft 365
- Best for customisation: Gemma 4, fully open weights
- Best for Excel specifically: Copilot (native) or ChatGPT (capability)
The practical approach is to learn two or three of these tools and use each for what it does best. In my workshops, I increasingly teach multi-model workflows — using Gemma 4 for drafting and privacy-sensitive work, then escalating to ChatGPT or Claude when a task demands deeper reasoning or specialised features.
The AI model landscape will continue to evolve rapidly. Gemma 4 itself represents a significant step forward for open-weight models — it narrowed the gap with paid alternatives more than any previous release. Whether that gap closes further or the paid models pull ahead again is something I will continue tracking and writing about. For the Gemma-specific comparisons, see my articles on Gemma 4 vs GPT-4o vs Llama 4 for Excel and Gemma 4 vs Gemini.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which AI model is the best overall in 2026?
There is no single best AI model — the right choice depends entirely on your use case. For coding and technical work, Claude and ChatGPT lead the field. For writing and content, Claude produces the most natural prose. For data analysis with file uploads, ChatGPT's Code Interpreter is unmatched. For privacy-sensitive work and budget-conscious teams, Gemma 4 running locally is the clear winner. For organisations already invested in Microsoft 365, Copilot offers the tightest integration. The practical approach is to use two or three models and switch between them based on the task.
Is Gemma 4 really free? What is the catch?
Gemma 4 is genuinely free to download and use under Google's open-weight licence. There is no subscription, no API cost, and no usage cap. The "catch" is that you need your own hardware to run it — specifically a computer with a decent GPU (8GB VRAM minimum for the smaller models, 16GB+ for the 27B version). You also need to set up the infrastructure yourself using tools like Ollama or LM Studio, which requires some technical comfort. But once running, it costs nothing beyond your electricity bill.
Can I use Gemma 4 for commercial projects?
Yes. Google's Gemma licence permits commercial use, including building products and services on top of the model. You can fine-tune it on your own data, deploy it internally, and use it in customer-facing applications. The key restriction is that you must comply with Google's usage policy, which prohibits certain harmful applications. For most business and development use cases — including the spreadsheet work, coding, and content creation discussed in this article — commercial use is fully permitted.
How does Gemma 4 compare to GPT-4o specifically for Excel and spreadsheet tasks?
For standard Excel formula generation, Gemma 4 (27B) produces correct results roughly 80-85% of the time, compared to GPT-4o's 90-95%. The gap is most noticeable in complex multi-step formulas, VBA macro quality, and formula debugging. However, for routine tasks like VLOOKUP/XLOOKUP, SUMIFS, conditional formatting rules, and basic data cleaning formulas, both models perform comparably. For detailed test results, see my dedicated Gemma 4 vs ChatGPT for spreadsheet work article.
Sources and Further Reading
Related Posts
- Gemma 4 vs GPT-4o vs Llama 4: Which Free AI Model Is Best for Excel Formulas?
- How to Run Gemma 4 Locally for Free: A Beginner's Guide
- Gemma 4 vs Gemini: What's the Difference and When to Use Which
- 5 Real-World Tasks Where Gemma 4 Beats Paid AI Models
- Gemma 4 for Data Analysis: Can It Replace ChatGPT for Spreadsheet Work?
- How to Use Gemma 4 in VS Code: Setup, Extensions, and Coding Workflows
- ChatGPT vs Claude vs Copilot vs Gemini for Excel
- How to Use ChatGPT to Write Excel Formulas
- How to Use Claude AI to Write Excel Formulas Instantly
- How to Use Google Gemini for Excel Formulas and Data
- Claude Agent Mode for Excel
Want to use AI tools more effectively?
My courses cover practical AI workflows, from spreadsheet formulas to app development, with real projects and honest tool comparisons.
Browse all courses