Research competitors for a board update with ChatGPT Deep Research
- Posted
- by Section (Chief of Staff to the COO)
- Last checked
- Method:
- How we verify
Evidence: Article or interviewA newsletter, journalist or interview account of what happened.
Context: In a comparison test: from a head-to-head chatbot review, not a standalone agent test.
Outcome
Section's chief of staff gave ChatGPT Deep Research and Gemini Deep Research the same competitive-analysis prompt for its AI coaching product, written from a board member's point of view; she rated ChatGPT's output 4.5/5, saying it surfaced less obvious competitors such as Skillsoft and DataCamp and gave exactly what she asked for, while Gemini's report scored 2.5/5 for being too high level.
Poster says:Output rated 4.5/5 (Gemini 2.5/5)
This is the source's own number. We haven't measured it.
Agent
Prompt Recreated prompt
The source didn't share its exact prompt, so we wrote this from what it describes.
Before you start, ask me 1–3 short questions about the details below and wait for my answers. Once I've answered, confirm the plan in one line and run the whole task start to finish. Goal: Find and compare the competitors to one of our products, in a format a busy board member can read. Quick-check questions: Which product, who is the reader, and which facts matter most (pricing, traction, partnerships, positioning)? What I'll give you: - My product and a one-paragraph description - Who will read it and what they decide - Competitors I already know, so they can be skipped or confirmed - The facts to compare for each competitor Rules: - Look beyond the obvious big players and include smaller or adjacent competitors; say why each one counts. - For each competitor give the offering, pricing, traction signals, notable partnerships and how it differs from us, with a source link and date. - Mark anything you couldn't confirm instead of guessing. - Put a one-paragraph summary and a comparison table first, then the detail. - Keep the full report skimmable: headings, bullets, no walls of text. Output: A summary, a comparison table and a sourced section per competitor. If my answers leave a gap, make a sensible choice, say what you assumed, and keep going. You'll know it worked when: I learn about at least one relevant competitor I didn't know, and every row in the table has a source.
Try this in:
Sends the Recreated prompt shown above. ChatGPT and Grok open with it filled in, and ChatGPT may send it straight away. Gemini opens empty, so we copy the prompt for you to paste. Every button also copies it.
Opens in a new tab. We don't see what you send.
These links are only a shortcut. We're not affiliated with OpenAI, Google or xAI, and your results may not match the source.
Optional stronger version
Our rewrite with extra checks. The poster didn't test it.
Before you start, ask me 1–3 short questions about the details below and wait for my answers. Once I've answered, confirm the plan in one line and run the whole task start to finish. Goal: Find and compare competitors to one of our products for a busy board member. Questions to ask me first: - Which product? - Who will read it? - Which facts matter most? Inputs (fill in or confirm): - Product description - Reader - Known competitors - Facts to compare - Deadline for the board pack - Competitors to exclude (e.g. resellers) - Format for the board pack (slides, memo) Rules: - Include smaller and adjacent competitors. - Give offering, pricing, traction, partnerships and differences with sources. - Mark unconfirmed items. - Summary and table first. - Add a one-line 'so what' for the board under the table. - Note threats and opportunities per competitor in one line each. - Keep the main body under 2 pages; put detail in an appendix. - Look beyond obvious rivals: include adjacent players and big platforms adding similar features. - For each competitor give offering, target customer, pricing (or 'not public'), traction signals, recent moves and how we differ. - Cite every fact with a dated link and mark anything older than 12 months. - Write the summary for a busy board member: 5 bullets, plain language. - Add a short 'what to watch' list for the next quarter. - Mark inferences clearly as inferences. - Check every source link opens before finishing. If you get stuck: If pricing is hidden, say so. If a login, CAPTCHA or two-step code appears, stop and ask me to handle it; never guess or store passwords. Verify before you finish: Spot-check sources. Output: Summary, table and detail. Done when: I learn about at least one new competitor.
Source
https://www.sectionai.com/blog/chatgpt-vs-gemini-deep-research
Related cases
- Write a competitor content-marketing report with ChatGPT agentRecreated promptEvidence: Article or interview
In Lisa Peyton's test, ChatGPT Agent Mode took 18 minutes to produce a 12-page narrative competitive-intelligence report on a list of competitors, with activity summaries, trend analysis, 31 cited sources and recommendations for content strategy.
Poster says:12-page report in 18 minutes; 31 sources
ChatGPT agent · Marketing · Source date:
- Qualify scraped leads against your ideal customer before cold email with Claude CodeRecreated promptEvidence: Described by poster
Claude Code reads each scraped company's website and checks it against the poster's ideal customer profile, dropping about 30% of leads before outreach; the poster says reply rates roughly doubled and they booked 100+ meetings in 3 months.
Poster says:100+ meetings booked in 3 months
Claude Code · Marketing · Source date:
- Write a cited industry report on AI in B2B visual marketing with Gemini Deep ResearchRecreated promptEvidence: Article or interview
Lisa Peyton gave Gemini, ChatGPT and Perplexity Deep Research the same prompt for a report on generative AI in B2B visual marketing; Gemini's roughly 9,500-word report was rated highly accurate with 95 distinct citations, though she found it more theoretical than practical, with fewer pricing details and implementation examples than ChatGPT's.
Poster says:About 9,500 words; 95 citations
Gemini Deep Research · Marketing · Source date: