Is Perplexity better than ChatGPT?

Start with what both products can actually do

Perplexity centres its offering on cited answers and research. Perplexity: products and getting started also describes Computer for broader work. ChatGPT can search the web too, and its search responses include citations. See OpenAI: web search.

So the useful comparison is not “one knows the internet and the other does not”. Ask how easily each product helps you gather evidence, inspect it and do the next piece of work. Access and settings affect the answer.

This is a practical selection method, not a benchmark study. I am not awarding either product a universal intelligence trophy. The shelf is full of chargers anyway.

When I would start by testing Perplexity

Start there when the output you want is an evidence trail: a supplier shortlist, a topic briefing or a comparison based on current published information. Write down the claims you need to verify before you begin.

A parent comparing learning resources might prioritise age range, format and cost. A business owner might need contract terms and implementation requirements. A team might need the sources behind an unfamiliar market claim.

Judge whether you can move from the answer to the original evidence without a treasure hunt. A tidy summary is welcome; a tidy summary with a missing caveat can be expensive.

When I would include ChatGPT in the trial

Include it when the research is the start of a longer task. You may need to turn approved findings into a document, work through a spreadsheet or revise a draft several times. OpenAI: ChatGPT on the web describes workflows using files and tools.

Give it the same evidence requirements. Ask for the sources behind factual statements and check whether the final output preserves the limits you found during research. A cautious first answer is no use if the caveats disappear from the presentation.

Perplexity also has tools for creating outputs, so test the full job in both. Old product stereotypes can hang around longer than the biscuits nobody likes.

Compare the parts that matter to you

These are test criteria, not scores. Do not pay for an advantage you cannot name. Equally, do not cling to a subscription just because you have finally remembered where the settings are.

Run a fair twenty-minute comparison

Use the same task, source material and output limit. Record the date, plan and tools enabled. Give both products a chance to ask a clarifying question. If one searched the web and the other did not, you have tested your setup as much as the product.

Compare [three options] for [audience] in [country] as of [date].
Use official sources for factual claims. Produce a table with suitability, limitations and facts to verify.
Distinguish published information from your judgement.
Finish with three questions I should answer before choosing. Do not invent prices.

Score relevance, evidence, usefulness and checking effort from one to five. Write a reason for each score. Add the time spent correcting or reformatting the answer. The stopwatch should keep running after the first impressive paragraph appears.

Choose one, both or a handover

If one tool handles your regular work well, use it properly before collecting another subscription. If each earns its place, define the handover. For example: gather and verify public evidence, save a dated brief, then use your preferred workspace to produce the final output.

Pass the verified evidence and its limitations, rather than copying a confident summary and hoping the nuance travels with it. Keep private work within the tools your organisation approves.

Our AI Basics Deep Dive module helps teams practise choosing a tool for the job. For clearer instructions, see the AI Prompting Masterclass guides. The aim is a better working day, not lifelong loyalty to a sidebar.