Comparing AI Providers: A Prompt Engineering Perspective

Not all AIs are created equal. Here's how to get the best results from each major provider.

The Test

We ran identical prompts across GPT-4, Claude, Gemini, and Llama to understand their differences.

Test Categories

• Creative writing
• Code generation
• Logical reasoning
• Factual accuracy
• Instruction following

Results Summary

GPT-4 Deep Dive

Strengths

• Excellent instruction following
• Strong at code
• Good at maintaining format
• Handles edge cases well

Optimization Tips

• Be explicit about format requirements
• Use system messages effectively
• Leverage its strong few-shot learning

Claude Deep Dive

Strengths

• Nuanced, thoughtful responses
• Excellent at long-form content
• Good at admitting uncertainty
• Strong ethical reasoning

Optimization Tips

• Ask for multiple perspectives
• Request it to "think through" problems
• Use for content requiring nuance

Gemini Deep Dive

Strengths

• Fast responses
• Good factual accuracy
• Strong multimodal capabilities
• Integrates with Google services

Optimization Tips

• Leverage multimodal features
• Good for fact-checking workflows
• Use for research tasks

Choosing the Right Provider

By Use Case

Code Work: GPT-4 > Claude > Gemini Blog Writing: Claude > GPT-4 > Gemini Research: Gemini > Claude > GPT-4 Quick Tasks: Gemini (fastest)

By Budget

• Tight budget: Gemini (best cost/performance)
• Quality focus: GPT-4 or Claude
• High volume: Consider fine-tuned smaller models

The Loomi Advantage

Loomi automatically optimizes prompts for your selected provider. Select your target, and we handle the nuances.

Conclusion

The best provider depends on your task. Understanding each model's strengths helps you make the right choice—or use Loomi to optimize automatically.