Compare AI Answers
Ask once. Read GPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok side by side, with the places they contradict each other pulled out.
People already do this by hand: paste the same question into two chat tabs and look for where the answers differ, because the disagreement is the part worth checking. This runs it in one go. Two models free, once a day. Paid plans put all four on the question.
Single · free · 1 a day — Council and Deep on any paid plan
Each one answers on its own. Then a separate model reads them all and lists where they split.
Deep takes a minute or two: four pro models answer, two critics review, one mediator writes the final call. This page updates when it lands.
Compare AI Answers runs the moment you sign in, on the text you just pasted. Nothing to enter twice.
A saved check is kept for 24 hours.
You've used today's one-model runs for this check.
Or come back tomorrow for another one-model run.
How comparing AI answers works
Each model answers the question on its own, with no view of the others. Then one model reads every answer and reports only where they contradict each other. Nobody picks a winner.
Ask the question once
Type it the way you would type it into any chatbot. Up to 2,000 characters.
Each model answers blind
GPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok, or the two cheapest on a free run, answer in parallel. None of them sees another's answer.
A separate pass lists the contradictions
One model reads all the answers and writes down each point where two or more take positions that cannot both be right, attributed by name. Differences in tone or length are ignored.
You read the splits first
Where four models from four labs agree, the claim is probably not where your problem is. Where they split is where to go and check.
Frontier models are trained on overlapping data and tuned against similar benchmarks, so they share many of the same mistakes. They do not share all of them. A contradiction between two vendors is a cheap signal that at least one of them is wrong about that point.
Have one specific claim to settle? The claim checker gives a verdict
Example comparison
A real Council run from 21 August 2026: four answers to one question, 82% agreement, and the place they split hardest.
Is it legal to quote a full paragraph from a paywalled news article in my paid newsletter under fair use, if I link to the original?
All four models agree that fair use is fact-specific, that a paid newsletter and paywalled source increase risk, and that linking or attribution does not by itself make the quotation lawful. The main split is how strongly they characterize a full paragraph: GPT and Gemini say it can be fair use depending on necessity and context, while Claude treats it as substantial and Grok says it is unlikely to qualify.
Likelihood that a full paragraph qualifies as fair use
- GPTA full paragraph may be acceptable if it is brief and necessary, although the described facts create meaningful risk.
- ClaudeA full paragraph is substantial and the overall situation is legally uncertain, with the commercial and paywalled context making it risky.
- GeminiQuoting a single paragraph can qualify as fair use, depending entirely on whether it is used with analysis, commentary, criticism, or context.
- GrokQuoting a full paragraph is unlikely to qualify as fair use because the commercial use, substantial excerpt, and likely market substitution create high risk.
Council · GPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok · the slowest answer took 18 seconds · 3 contradictions listed by the comparison pass · 23 seconds end to end
Frequently Asked Questions
It sends your question to several AI models at the same time, shows you each answer in full, and lists the points where the answers contradict each other, with the model named next to each position. It does not merge the answers and it does not pick a best one.
On a free run, GPT and Gemini, the two cheapest of the four vendors we run. On a paid plan, Council asks GPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok; Deep asks the four pro-tier models from the same vendors. The comparison step always runs on one separate model that only reads answers.
Because a model cannot tell you where it is wrong. Two models from different labs can, a little: where they contradict each other, at least one is wrong on that point, and that is the point to go and verify. Where they agree you have less to worry about, though agreement is not proof, since the models share training data.
Yes, in the literal sense. The second, third and fourth opinions come from models built by different companies on different data, which is the only kind of second opinion that tells you anything. Asking the same model twice tells you how it phrases things.
You do. The comparison pass only reports contradictions; it has no vote. If you want a verdict on a specific claim, the claim checker gives one.
One question a day on two models, up to 2,000 characters. Paid plans run Council and Deep against credits with no daily cap.
Powered by TrueStandard
Multi-model AI verification for high-stakes decisions.