{"slug": "i-asked-each-ai-how-to-squeeze-the-most-out-of-its-rival", "title": "I Asked Each AI How to Squeeze the Most Out of Its Rival", "summary": "A user who pays $480 a year for both Claude Pro and ChatGPT Plus asked each AI how to get the most value from the other. ChatGPT told the user they were probably using only 30% of what they pay for and recommended eight principles including giving Claude goals instead of steps, assigning fixed job titles, and using Claude Code. Claude corrected a basic setup mistake before answering and openly admitted where ChatGPT was better, with both models recommending the competition without brand protection.", "body_md": "I paid $480 a year for Claude Pro and ChatGPT Plus.\n\nI was pretty sure I was only getting about 30% of the value.\n\nSo I ran a simple experiment: I asked each AI how to squeeze the most out of the *other* one.\n\nI expected both to quietly promote themselves.\n\nInstead, one of them told me I was probably wasting most of what I was paying for.\n\nThe other corrected a basic mistake in my setup before it even answered the question.\n\nAnd both openly admitted where their rival was better.\n\nNo brand protection. No false modesty. Just the closest thing to honest advice you can get from a model that has nothing to gain by flattering itself.\n\nHere’s exactly what they said — including the parts where they recommended the competition.\n\n## What ChatGPT Said About Claude\n\n*(I told ChatGPT my setup: Claude Pro, Claude Code, working in investing, English blog/tools, and high school education.)*\n\nChatGPT’s opening line: **“You’re probably using about 30% of what you’re paying for.”**\n\nThen it gave me eight principles.\n\n### 1. Stop micromanaging. Give Claude goals, not steps.\n\nDon’t say: “Help me write HTML.”\n\nSay: “Design an SEO-optimized investing tool. Analyze competitors first. Then design the UI. Then write the code. Then test it yourself.”\n\nThe output is completely different. Claude performs better with autonomy than with step-by-step instructions.\n\n### 2. Give Claude fixed job titles — not just questions.\n\nChatGPT suggested I assign Claude four permanent roles:\n\n**Chief Investment Analyst**— every day, ask: what changed about moat / industry structure / financial quality / 3-year earnings? Give me a hold / watch / re-research verdict. Nothing else.**English Blog Editor**— for every article: SEO score, E-E-A-T score, Reddit/Hacker News/Medium distribution potential, whether it’s worth translating or recording as a podcast.**Product Manager**— ask as a Google PM: why would someone open this tool, bookmark it, share it, come back, recommend it, pay for it? Only keep features that survive all six questions.**High School Exam Designer**— not a teacher. A*gaokao question writer*. What does this concept test? Where do students most often fail? Design the animation.\n\n### 3. Claude Code is where the real money is.\n\nMost people who pay for Claude Pro spend it on chat. ChatGPT said the actual value is Claude Code — give it the whole project, not individual files. Let it audit, fix, test, and commit without you managing each step.\n\n### 4. Build a CLAUDE.md file. 90% of users don’t do this.\n\nA project-level instruction file that tells Claude your goals, your audience, your tech stack, your style rules. Once it’s there, you never explain yourself again. Every session starts with Claude already knowing the rules.\n\n### 5. Clear context between tasks. Don’t let sessions bloat.\n\nOne long conversation across 300 rounds makes Claude progressively worse. One project, one conversation. When a task is done, `/clear`\n\n. Start fresh. Claude’s performance degrades as the context window fills.\n\n### 6. Build a Prompt Library.\n\nStop rewriting the same prompts. Save your investment review prompt. Save your article audit prompt. Save your lesson design prompt. It’s infrastructure, not convenience.\n\n### 7. Use Claude as executor. Use ChatGPT as challenger.\n\nClaude generates. ChatGPT finds the holes — logic errors, weak assumptions, SEO gaps, investment biases. This is cross-review, and it’s more reliable than either model alone.\n\n### 8. The full weekly split.\n\n| Time | Claude handles | ChatGPT handles |\n|---|---|---|\n| Morning | Read filings, extract long-term logic | Challenge conclusions, add counterpoints |\n| Afternoon | Build tools (Claude Code) | Review from user value / SEO / product angle |\n| Evening | English blog draft, podcast script | Polish language, check E-E-A-T, distribution strategy |\n| Weekend | Refactor site, automation scripts, education tools | Propose new product directions, monetization ideas |\n\n## What Claude Said About ChatGPT\n\n*(I told Claude my setup: ChatGPT Plus, Codex, same three domains.)*\n\nClaude started with a correction: what I called “Pro” is actually Plus. The real Pro is $200/month. The distinction matters because **Plus has a rate limit** — roughly 160 flagship messages per 3 hours — and once you hit it, the model drops down automatically. So the entire strategy changes: spend expensive compute on things that actually require it.\n\n### 1. Use Projects as three permanent workstations.\n\nBuild separate Projects for investing / blog+tools / education. Upload your frameworks, custom instructions, and key files into each. Never re-explain your context again. (This is the ChatGPT equivalent of CLAUDE.md.)\n\n### 2. Turn your recurring roles into Custom GPTs.\n\nIf you role-play the same setup repeatedly — “you are a gaokao question designer” or “you are a moat analyst who never makes up data” — that’s a Custom GPT. Build it once, use it forever, share it with others.\n\n### 3. Deep Research is a cross-validator, not a chatbot.\n\nPlus includes Deep Research with limited uses per month. Don’t waste it on basic questions. Use it to fact-check AI-generated conclusions against primary sources — earnings reports, official announcements. Claude once caught Gemini fabricating a premise. Deep Research is exactly the tool for that kind of audit.\n\n### 4. Scheduled Tasks for your morning dashboard.\n\nPlus supports timed automation. Set it to pull your tracked sector signals every trading day morning, generate a draft summary, and have it waiting when you wake up. You review; it researches.\n\n### 5. Budget your rate limit intentionally.\n\nDrafts, translations, formatting: use mini or low reasoning. Financial statement audits, logic-checking, complex reasoning: use high reasoning mode. Heavy long-running tasks: send to Codex Cloud, which runs independently from your chat quota.\n\n### 6. Codex is separate from your message quota. Use it differently.\n\nQuick local edits: local CLI. Long tasks, batch work, anything that takes more than a few minutes: Codex Cloud at chatgpt.com/codex. It runs in the background, you preview the diff when it’s done, then merge.\n\n### 7. For investing: AI as auditor, not author.\n\nClaude’s exact words: “Strictly ban it from writing investment conclusions — that’s exactly where fabrication is most common.” Use it to audit your own reasoning and flag red-line violations. Upload your position snapshot and ask it to find internal contradictions you’ve missed. Never ask it to *generate* an investment thesis.\n\n## The Honest Summary\n\nAfter running both conversations back-to-back, the sharpest insight wasn’t any single tip. It was this:\n\n**They described each other’s weaknesses accurately.**\n\nChatGPT said Claude performs best when given autonomy and clear constraints — and that Claude Code is underused. That matches everything I’ve experienced.\n\nClaude said ChatGPT Plus has a rate limit that degrades performance if you’re not careful — and that Deep Research is the most underused feature. Also accurate.\n\nNeither of them would have said this about themselves.\n\nThe cross-examination worked.\n\nIf you’re paying for one of these and not the other: the ChatGPT tips for Claude work even if you only use Claude. The Claude tips for ChatGPT work even if you only use ChatGPT. The individual principles hold up on their own.\n\nIf you’re paying for both: the split is clear. Claude builds. ChatGPT reviews. You decide.\n\n*This is part of my Learning in Public series — what I’m actually figuring out, in real time.*\n\n[Failed Experiments #1: Why My First Online Business Got Zero Visitors](https://ordinarymantrying.com/rolluppiano-failed-business-what-i-learned/)[Failed Experiments #2: I Paid ¥1,000 for an AI Content Course](https://ordinarymantrying.com/i-paid-1000-ai-content-course-failed-experiments-2/)[Why Medium and WeChat Reward Completely Different Writers](https://ordinarymantrying.com/medium-vs-wechat-income-gap-what-ai-showed-me/)[Free Tool: AI Investment Operating System](https://ordinarymantrying.com/ai-investment-operating-system-free-tool/)\n\n## The Real Lesson Isn’t Which AI Is Best\n\nI started this experiment looking for a winner.\n\nThere isn’t one.\n\nThe real finding is simpler and more useful: AI becomes dramatically more valuable when models are forced to challenge each other instead of selling themselves. The moment you remove the incentive to self-promote, you get something closer to the truth.\n\nClaude builds.\n\nChatGPT reviews.\n\nYou decide.\n\nThe individual tips still work even if you only pay for one of them. But if you pay for both, the highest-leverage move is not to pick a favorite — it’s to make them argue.\n\nThis is the first post in a series I’m calling **AI Cross-Examination**: letting models evaluate each other instead of themselves.\n\nNext up:\n\n- What happens when I ask every major AI which one hallucinates the most\n- Five models critiquing the same investment thesis\n- Taking their advice on each other and actually running it for two weeks\n\nIf you want the unfiltered versions, follow along.", "url": "https://wpnews.pro/news/i-asked-each-ai-how-to-squeeze-the-most-out-of-its-rival", "canonical_source": "https://ordinarymantrying.com/i-asked-each-ai-how-to-squeeze-the-most-out-of-its-rival/", "published_at": "2026-07-29 06:18:23+00:00", "updated_at": "2026-07-29 06:34:01.026197+00:00", "lang": "en", "topics": ["artificial-intelligence", "large-language-models", "ai-tools", "ai-products"], "entities": ["ChatGPT", "Claude", "Claude Pro", "ChatGPT Plus", "Claude Code"], "alternates": {"html": "https://wpnews.pro/news/i-asked-each-ai-how-to-squeeze-the-most-out-of-its-rival", "markdown": "https://wpnews.pro/news/i-asked-each-ai-how-to-squeeze-the-most-out-of-its-rival.md", "text": "https://wpnews.pro/news/i-asked-each-ai-how-to-squeeze-the-most-out-of-its-rival.txt", "jsonld": "https://wpnews.pro/news/i-asked-each-ai-how-to-squeeze-the-most-out-of-its-rival.jsonld"}}