Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Claude for Enterprise vs Google Gemini AI comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 4, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Claude for Enterprise
Ranking in AI Writing Tools
5th
Ranking in AI Code Assistants
7th
Ranking in Large Language Models (LLMs)
6th
Ranking in AI Proofreading Tools
4th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
AI-Powered Chatbots (5th), AI Software Development (14th), AI Content Creation (6th), AI Research (3rd)
Google Gemini AI
Ranking in AI Writing Tools
1st
Ranking in AI Code Assistants
3rd
Ranking in Large Language Models (LLMs)
1st
Ranking in AI Proofreading Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.3
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Large Language Models (LLMs) category, the mindshare of Claude for Enterprise is 8.7%, up from 6.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Google Gemini AI is 15.5%, down from 29.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Large Language Models (LLMs) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Google Gemini AI15.5%
Claude for Enterprise8.7%
Other75.8%
Large Language Models (LLMs)
 

Featured Reviews

Nishant Thakkar - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Analyst at WTW
Data visualization and workflow efficiency improve with automated features
I do not have a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer, and I was not offered a gift card or incentive for this review. We use other tech products such as Microsoft Excel and Slack. We can use my real name when publishing my review, along with my real company name. On a scale of 1-10, I rate Claude an 8.
Uday Boya - PeerSpot reviewer
AI Research Enthusiast and Developer at ADP
AI workflows have transformed prototyping and coding productivity across my daily projects
There is a steeper learning curve for advanced agentic features that could be improved, and hallucinations should be reduced. The answers provided are long, which is impressive but not efficient for users needing rapid, crisp responses. Providing concise answers would improve the user experience. Google Gemini AI's UI code is too vague and the designs are not very appealing. Google Gemini AI can improve its UI code and address hallucination issues. The long answers provided can be tiresome to read, and the pricing is too high for individuals like me. These considerations led me to give a rating one point less than ten. Native GitHub or Vercel export could be integrated, and the context could be increased to over two million tokens. A simplified agentic setup for the UI could also help non-technical experts handle it more effectively.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Overall, I rate Claude nine out of ten."
"Claude has positively impacted my organization, as evident from the metrics which show productivity doubling and turnaround time being cut in half."
"Claude saves me significant time when conducting research or writing quick Python scripts."
"The main benefits that Gemini brings to the table include definitely speeding things up significantly, and it is also introducing many new use cases that we were not able to work on earlier."
"Google Gemini has the best combination of scalability, costs, performance, and accuracy."
"The most valuable feature of Google Gemini for us is its text writing capabilities, which we are using for writing texts and social media posts for our company's social media page."
"I would rate my overall experience with Google Gemini as a nine out of ten."
"I have seen many cases of reduced costs and working hours."
"I have compared responses from Gemini and ChatGPT and received similar results but presented differently, and every tool has its uniqueness; it is good, and I am enjoying using both tools, but most often I use ChatGPT because I haven't used Gemini recently."
"The most beneficial aspect of Google Gemini for me is that it's able to do searches much better."
"Google provides an out-of-the-box solution with a comprehensive ecosystem of tools."
 

Cons

"The foundational model would have to be improved to be comparable to ChatGPT for everyday use cases."
"The product could be improved by offering automatic integration with other solutions, such as the ability to read Excel or text files and automate processes this way."
"Google Gemini often gets factual answers wrong, which is problematic."
"Google Gemini needs more accurate answers and the ability to export data to Excel or Google Sheets."
"Currently, it operates mostly autonomously, and while it provides structured activities, making the research configuration more accessible and flexible would be beneficial."
"I conducted some research using Google Gemini, and sometimes the results are not correct. For example, when I asked for information about marketing and inquired about the sources used, the sources were not relevant or had no relation to the subject I was researching."
"The binning process could be more intuitive, especially when grouping data into categories like age groups."
"I do not have a special recommendation for improvement."
"Google Gemini AI is not used much because it does not appear to be as responsive or as effective as Alexa when responding to questions, queries, instructions, or commands."
"Gemini 3 Pro is too expensive for individuals like me, costing about thirty dollars per user per month, and its responses tend to be long, requiring users to read considerably more than other models that provide crisper answers."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Large Language Models (LLMs) solutions are best for your needs.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
8%
University
8%
Comms Service Provider
8%
University
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise6
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Claude?
For an individual user, it is very easy and straightforward. I cannot speak to larger teams.
What needs improvement with Claude?
The foundational model would have to be improved to be comparable to ChatGPT for everyday use cases. The system should be better at understanding when to reply directly with the foundational model ...
What is your primary use case for Claude?
I primarily use Claude for developing quick Python scripts, conducting research, and getting answers to complex questions. Claude saves me significant time when conducting research or writing quick...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Google Gemini?
The pricing of Google Gemini AI is not well understood, so no feedback can be provided on the cost. It was thought to have come together with the device subscription.
What needs improvement with Google Gemini?
Google Gemini AI is not used much because it does not appear to be as responsive or as effective as Alexa when responding to questions, queries, instructions, or commands. When in a room with Googl...
What is your primary use case for Google Gemini?
Google Gemini AI is used for common, basic digital assistant queries such as asking about the weather and the time. Often there are conflicting responses from Google Home, Google Home Mini, and the...
 

Also Known As

Anthropic Claude 3 Haiku
Google Bard
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Claude for Enterprise vs. Google Gemini AI and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.