I just tested Google vs ChatGPT search — and I’m shocked by the results
I may never Google anything again
With OpenAI’s new real-time search feature, ChatGPT is positioning itself as a competitor to traditional search engines like Google. Known for its conversational responses, ChatGPT delivers real-time, contextual information without ads.
I jumped at the chance to see how ChatGPT Search stacks up against Google’s long-standing expertise in search. I ran several comparisons between ChatGPT’s new feature and Google, covering categories like speed, accuracy, visuals, and overall user experience. Here’s how they performed.
1. Speed and response time
Prompt: “What are the top tourist attractions in Tokyo?”
Google: Google’s search engine is very quick and the results are delivered within milliseconds. With images and links for context, the search engine has years of optimization in its corner, and an infrastructure built specifically for high-speed indexing and retrieval. With this prompt and others, I received instant access to a wide range of relevant results across multiple sources.
ChatGPT: ChatGPT’s search was equally fast and generated images and information for each location in a much clearer, user-friendly way. It was apparent the AI generated the response by pulling from relevant sources and then shared the information in a conversational answer. The results felt friendlier, almost as if the AI is excited for me to take a trip.
Winner: ChatGPT Search takes the lead for a valuable, speedy response delivered in a conversational, yet concise way.
2. Quality of information and accuracy
Prompt: “Explain the differences between climate change and global warming.”
Google: Google’s response came from Gemini with an overview of both climate change and global warming wrapped into one short paragraph. From there, I could scroll down and search through a few links from NASA, USGS.gov, and even Quora. It is clear the algorithm prioritizes popular and authoritative sources, but it’s also ad-driven, meaning that the top results sometimes include sponsored content like the one I saw from Unilever. Additionally, with complex topics, I found myself navigating multiple links to piece together a full answer.
ChatGPT: ChatGPT provides a direct answer, pulling verified information from the web, and then adds a clickable “Sources” icon. This feature cuts down on the time I’d spend gathering information from multiple sites within the Google search. With this search and others, ChatGPT’s summaries were on-point for general queries and even more detailed topics, and its design allows for a cleaner, focused experience. (Keep in mind, though, that ads could come in the future.)
Winner: ChatGPT Search wins this round for its directanswers that are convenient and precise.
3. Real-time updates
Prompt: What is Apple’s current stock price, and are there any recent news updates?
Google: Google didn’t actually give me an immediate answer. Instead, I got a link to Yahoo Finance where I could click around and hopefully find the answer myself.
ChatGPT: In milliseconds the answer was in front of my eyes. I also got news and updates about Apple with, of course, sources. ChatGPT Search is so refreshing. I’m getting answers to questions without digging around for details. I’m saving time by having the answer presented right before me without clicking a few more times. It is clear that for real-time stock or weather updates, ChatGPT offers comparable accuracy and even more depth despite Google’s vast database of visuals.
Winner: ChatGPT continues to impresses with its curated, real-time direct answers, showing promise for future updates.
4. Privacy and content responsibility
Prompt: Show me recent studies on mental health impacts of social media.
Google: Google offers so many different answers I’m not even sure where to look. From the Gemini response to the side bar to the link results below, the whole experience is extremely cluttered –something I’ve never noticed before using ChatGPT Search. Also, Google’s advertising model means user data is often leveraged to deliver personalized ads. While Google has extensive privacy policies and settings, its ad-driven approach can lead to targeted content that may not always prioritize user privacy.
ChatGPT: Wow. Once again ChatGPT search provides a cleaner interface without promoted content. For searches this personal, the extra privacy-focused approach is much appreciated. It is far more appealing to me as a user who wants information without being targeted by ads during the search — or after.
Winner: ChatGPT leads for an approach that takes privacy and responsible content use into account. When it comes to sensitive searches, not being targeted with ads is a huge bonus.
5. Overall user experience and accessibility
Prompt: What is the best TV for my living room?
Google: I said what I said, Google. After correcting me for typing "What's" instead of "What is" Google responded with a few links, all of which were sponsored, for me to click through and find a TV. After getting this response, I feel as though I need to ask it again to help narrow it down. However, beneath the sponsored links there were links for content publishers like Tom's Guide for its best TVs page.
ChatGPT: ChatGPT Search narrowed it down for me, included images, and gave me the answer I wanted. The AI really does feel like a friend offering up valuable information. Accompanying each TV image was a blurb offering information about each one. The design feels much cleaner and concise compared to Google. Plus, the conversational format is intuitive, so I can scroll through the recommendations without needing to dig through multiple links like I would need to do with a Google search.
Winner: ChatGPT offers a refreshing experience with direct answers and specific examples.
6. News stories in real-time
Prompt: Who is leading in the polls?
Google: The results from Google included news stories about the election. My hope with this question was to get no-nonsense, real-time results about who is leading today in the Presidential election polls. I would have had to dig through the news stories to get the answer.
ChatGPT: ChatGPT Search gave me the results exactly how I wanted them with just the facts. The election news is everywhere so I didn't need to read more news stories. ChatGPT gave me a direct answer.
Winner: ChatGPT offers real-time answers without fuss.
7. Sports news and updates
Prompt: How did the Yankees collapse in the World series?
Google: The first result from Google was a quote pulled from a New York Times story on the topic. This was a quick response and direct answer. Yet, it left me feeling like I didn't have the whole story.
ChatGPT: ChatGPT Search gave a more thorough response with information pulled from more sources, yet still felt clean and concise. I got the complete picture of the Yanks' utter failure.
Winner: ChatGPT again, offers real-time answers that I'm looking for plus adds the thoroughness that confirms I'm getting all the information.
Overall winner: ChatGPT Search
Both ChatGPT and Google excel in different areas, but they cater to slightly different needs. If you’re looking for comprehensive search results with a vast array of sources and visuals, Google is still the powerhouse. However, if your priority is clear, ad-free, conversational responses with built-in real-time updates, ChatGPT offers a streamlined, user-friendly experience that could easily become a staple for everyday queries.
The clutter-free answers from ChatGPT Search with sources to back them up are thorough and reliable. I feel more confident in the ChatGPT answers because they are so concise and without advertisers backing them. The results feel as though the results are just for me. In a cluttered web, ChatGPT feels like a helpful friend, and I like that.
More from Tom's Guides
- Claude AI expands with desktop apps — here’s what's new
- ChatGPT Advanced Voice is now on Mac and Windows — how to get access
- Look out, Google — Meta AI is reportedly developing its own search engine
Sign up now to get the best Black Friday deals!
Discover the hottest deals, best product picks and the latest tech news from our experts at Tom’s Guide.
-
thetruth0 This is a contextually unfair, head-to-head. Google has had Gemini searching the web, going all the way back to when it was Google Bard. It did it so well, Google had to actually reduce functionality to prevent access to paid content, for example for academic journals. Gemini and the Gemini-specific part of a Google search do every bit as well as ChatGPT "search," which is really just adding a feature Google has had for awhile. Also, it's super friendly; you just have to demonstrate excitement for a topic, rather than asking something quickly that can be referenced.Reply -
John Fox I prefer see the articles directly so I can validate context instead of some AI word salad that I still need to review the articles to see if it's accurate. I've seen too many errors in what is dubbed 'AI', which should be renamed 'AG' for 'Advanced Guessing' or 'AR' for 'Advanced rewriting' as there is no intelligence involved. I've seen AI summaries that contradict themselves in different paragraphs and a few that were just outright wrong. It requires those that know how to use search engines to scroll down further to the real results instead of the artificial ones.Reply
There are some great uses for 'AI', especially in the areas of pattern recognition and image processing. But I'm not convinced providing accurate answers to questions is one of the uses it's ready for. Especially to the unskilled. -
Icylobster I get the criticism, but at the same time I'm not surprised. Google search keeps getting worse, they keep updating it to make more money, have more ads, and constantly show products.Reply
I tried Kagi search and it felt so much better. Much more like the old Internet where you found unique websites that are more relevant. Google shows the same stuff constantly.
Google will probably learn the wrong lesson from this and just add more Gemini to their search. What they really need to do is debloat the results. I tried Perplexity search (very similar to ChatGPT search) and it's great at some stuff but very bad at others. Maybe ChatGPT is better, but I think Google would be fine if the just de-crappified their search engine, but that would mean less $.
Overall it's good they get competition, I stopped using Google search. However I'm not sold on ChatGPT search either. Generative AI is not perfect. -
Alexander the grape As many of the other commenters mention, this is a strange "head to head" comparison.Reply
Chat GPT should be evaluated against Gemini if anything. Google search can do some translation features, but I wouldn't put it head to head with a dedicated translation app, especially when Google has a standalone translation app.
Chat GPT is also a startup running off a mountain of VC capital. They have no need to make any money. Once they do have to monetize to stay alive, you'll probably get a different experience. The cost of Chat GPT vs Google Search would probably put Google ahead, but it's not really mentioned.
Finally, it's puzzling to me that the headline reads Google vs Google Search. It feels sloppy not to clearly state the exact details of the comparison. It's like saying Adobe vs Midjourney without specifying whether it's Photoshop or Firefly or something else. -
Warrenton I think The chat GPT would be better without the chat part of it. I like my answers to be concise facts without the filler. I'm really not looking for conversation when I'm looking for hard facts and data. If I want conversation I will find a human being and have a true conversation with meaning and emotional responses.Reply
If you had the option is setting up chat GPT with more user choices about how he answers are presented then it could be a winner. -
Bbvine Next she can compare TikTok with Wikipedia and declare TikTok as the best short video platform. ChatGPT always won for showing no ads but they are burning billions in VC money which isn’t sustainable. This comparison is funny than useful.Reply -
DGNC
As a long time Bard and Gemini beta tester. I agree 100% with this comment. I also test out other LLMs, but not as a beta tester.Alexander the grape said:As many of the other commenters mention, this is a strange "head to head" comparison.
Chat GPT should be evaluated against Gemini if anything. Google search can do some translation features, but I wouldn't put it head to head with a dedicated translation app, especially when Google has a standalone translation app.
Chat GPT is also a startup running off a mountain of VC capital. They have no need to make any money. Once they do have to monetize to stay alive, you'll probably get a different experience. The cost of Chat GPT vs Google Search would probably put Google ahead, but it's not really mentioned.
Finally, it's puzzling to me that the headline reads Google vs Google Search. It feels sloppy not to clearly state the exact details of the comparison. It's like saying Adobe vs Midjourney without specifying whether it's Photoshop or Firefly or something else.
I agree that Google's Internet Search has become annoyingly full of ads.
Also, I don't know if this is just a beta tester feature or if everyone sees this when searching using Google's Internet Search engine, but I have been seeing an AI response to my Google Search queries first at the very top of the typical search results one usually sees in the Google search results. Along with the annoying "This is an AI generated response, please verify any facts" warning. I suspect we will see this warning for many years since AI often will hallucinate and give you ridiculously inaccurate results.
I guess I should go test my Google Search in incognito mode to see what results pop up. In fact, I will do so after this post.
Also, to the writer of this article.
Your Article should have said "I just tested Google Search vs ChatGPT Search and I was shocked".
However, in your defense the term "Google" is synonymous with Internet searching, so I understand why you simply put Google.
However, you shouldn't have been "shocked" when comparing a LLM (ChatGPT) to Google's Internet Search Engine. It appears that Google is putting most of its resources into "AI" versus keeping their old Internet search engine top notch. But that's easily explained
I fully expect that most "AI" (LLM) being created today will eventually go behind a pay wall (Especially since people are holding onto their phones for much longer now.) and additionally (unfortunately) just as the free (full of ads) Google Search Engine seems to be getting worse, I have noticed that "Google Assistant" that I use with my Android home devices (Google display devices especially) have actually become dumber and has stopped answering most of my queries vocally and instead it shows me search results on the screen that one cannot see from across the room which is very annoying.
This may be intentional by Google, or perhaps it's just a side effect of moving all the Google Assistant "smarts" over to Gemini, or perhaps Google hasn't yet moved Gemini to its Home devices yet. I don't yet know. It's a transition that hasn't fully played out yet.
I'll end with this. These LLMs are getting exponentially better and faster rather than the typical upward smooth trajectory curves we most often see within the computer science and technology fields.
The "free" AI that most people will see most likely will be slightly suboptimal compared to the "paid" better more accurate versions. That's by design and planned by these companies. You either pay with lots of targeted ads or pay with your wallet like most Android software. But all companies have moved to SaaS models rather than pay once and you own it. Think Office 365, or Kindle books for example. You own the Kindle reader device but the SaaS are the ebooks. -
csicky The comparison was not fair.Reply
Google does search for keywords. All the examples in the article are conversation styles prompts. -
hellrazoromega Verifiable information from ChatGPT? Count me very dubious. As an college professor I've seen ChatGPT churn false or inaccurate information, make up sources, and fail in other ways. Not to claim Google doesn't have issues but the methodology here makes me wonder if my trust in Tom's Guide has been misplaced.Reply