Which AI Is Actually Best for What? Belkin Marketing Team Ongoing Research
- 2 hours ago
- 9 min read
A practical, no-fluff guide from a professional team that tested them all — with the best paid and free option for each job.
There's a pattern most users fall into: they pick one AI and try to make it do everything. Research, writing, image generation, coding, video scripts, competitive analysis. The tool becomes a Swiss army knife used exclusively as a spoon.
The reality is that AI models, like human specialists, have areas where they genuinely excel and areas where they quietly underperform. Using the wrong model for the job doesn't just produce worse output — it costs you time you don't realize you're losing.
But which AI is actually best for what? At Belkin Marketing we use LLMs daily and, after months (2000 hours and counting) of running different models through real production work, we've decided that our expertise, mistakes and findings are actually more valuable than you'd think and are definitely worth sharing. Below are the takeaways from our experience, settled in a form of a useful listicle-format working stack organized by task type. This is just our take and a few community tips: no affiliate deals, no rankings paid for by vendors, no BS.
💬 Chat Assistant / General Thinking Partner
Best paid: Claude Opus 4 (Anthropic) — claude.ai
Best free: Claude (Sonnet on the free tier) or Gemini Advanced
Claude is our default thinking partner for a reason that's hard to quantify in a benchmark but easy to feel in daily use: it's the most reasonable. It pushes back when your idea is weak, admits when it doesn't know something, and doesn't hallucinate confidently the way some competitors do. For long-form writing and nuanced analysis, Claude consistently leads the field, and that extends to strategic thinking, document reviews, and anything that requires the AI to hold a complex brief without losing the thread.
The practical reason Opus 4 (not Sonnet) is worth the premium for primary work: it handles large context windows without degrading — useful when you're feeding it a whole brand brief, research doc, or content strategy. Sonnet 4.6 (the current free-tier model) is genuinely good for most daily tasks and a smart starting point.
Claude also scores 89.6% on GPQA (graduate-level scientific reasoning) with adaptive mode enabled, which explains why it handles ambiguous, complex briefs without losing the thread. On SWE-bench for coding, it leads at 80.8% (more on that below).
Pro tip from Reddit's r/ClaudeAI: Give Claude a role and a constraint upfront — not just "write this," but "you are an editorial director reviewing this for a business audience, flag anything that sounds like it was written by an AI." The outputs change meaningfully. Also: Claude's Projects feature lets you maintain context across sessions, which is how it becomes a real collaborator rather than a one-shot tool.
🔬 Research & Fact-Checking
Best paid: Perplexity Pro — perplexity.ai
Best free: Perplexity (free tier, 5 deep searches per 4 hours)
For anything where you need sourced, current information: market research, competitor analysis, scientific topics, fact-checking claims before publishing and even reputation management — Perplexity is in a different category from general chatbots. Perplexity's Deep Research mode attains 21.1% accuracy on Humanity's Last Exam, significantly higher than Gemini Thinking, o3-mini, and DeepSeek-R1, which sounds abstract until you realize it means the citations it gives you are actually real and actually support the claims.
What makes it the go-to for scientific and research tasks specifically is the Academic focus mode, which restricts searches to peer-reviewed journals and scholarly databases rather than pulling from the general web. That's a different product from a regular search engine dressed up with a chat interface.
Pro tips:
Use Focus modes intentionally. Switch to Academic mode for research, Social mode to surface Reddit and forum opinions, Writing mode for drafting. The same query in Social mode surfaces real Reddit threads where founders share what they actually use — that's qualitatively different from what you get in web mode.
Prefix complex queries with "Deep Research:" to trigger the multi-pass research mode. It takes 2–4 minutes but produces a structured, cited report that would otherwise take hours manually.
Always click the citations. Perplexity is excellent but not infallible. A March 2025 study by the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University found that Perplexity performed best among tested AI search engines, but its error rate was still 37% — meaning verification remains non-optional.
Pair it with NotebookLM for deep analysis of documents you've already gathered. Perplexity finds; NotebookLM (free, from Google) analyzes what you feed it.
🎨 Image Generation
Best paid: Midjourney v7 (artistic/campaign work) or FLUX.1.1 Pro (photorealism/product)
Best free: Adobe Firefly free tier (commercial-safe) or Ideogram (best for text in images)
This is the category where "best" varies most dramatically by use case, and where using the wrong tool wastes the most time.
The data from independent testing is consistent: Midjourney v7 achieves an 87.6% aesthetic quality score in blind evaluations, with 58% of testers choosing its outputs when asked "which would you hang on a wall." FLUX 1.1 Pro counters with 94.1% photorealism fidelity and text rendering accuracy of ~94% versus Midjourney's ~71% — meaning if your output needs legible words inside an image, FLUX is the correct call, and Midjourney will cost you multiple re-generations. In speed, FLUX generates at roughly 4.5 seconds per image versus Midjourney's 30–90 seconds.
Choose by job type:
Job | Tool | Why |
Campaign visuals, mood, editorial | Midjourney v7 | Unmatched aesthetics, cinematic feel |
Product photography, photorealism | FLUX 1.1 Pro / Kontext | 94.1% realism fidelity |
Text inside images | Ideogram 2.0 | Only model that reliably renders legible type |
Corporate/legally safe visuals | Adobe Firefly | Trained exclusively on licensed + public domain images |
API integration / automation | FLUX Pro (via Replicate) | REST API, pay-per-use, no Discord dependency |
The setup most users skip: Midjourney's Style Tuner lets you define your brand's visual identity once and apply it consistently across all generations. Users that skip this spend 10× longer achieving visual consistency than teams that set it up in the first session.
🎬 Video Generation
Best paid: Kling v2.1 (volume/social content) or Veo 3.1 (cinematic/agency-grade)
Best free: Kling free tier (limited generations) or Pika Labs free plan
AI video generation has genuinely crossed the threshold into production-usable in 2025, but the landscape is fragmented — and the best tool depends entirely on what "video" means to your workflow.
The practical breakdown based on our testing and independent comparisons:
Kling 3.0 — Best for volume, social content, and motion control. The Motion Control feature transfers dance moves, gestures, and character movements frame-accurately from a reference video. For performance marketers running high-output campaigns, reliability at scale is what makes Kling earn its place. Pricing: ~$0.10/second.
Veo 3.1 (Google) — Leads on natural lip synchronization, human performance, and dialogue-driven content. When a character needs to look like they're actually speaking, Veo is the choice. Broadcast-ready output, cinema-standard frame rate. Best for: talking heads, explainer videos, any audio-critical content.
Sora 2 (OpenAI) — Leads on physics simulation and narrative coherence. Handles complex prompts with precision — multiple subjects, specific camera movements, synchronized audio. In a blind 3-way test comparing all three, Sora 2 was rated the overall winner by independent testers on creative, commercial, and cinematic prompts.
Tips from production practitioners:
Start with image-to-video, not text-to-video. Generate your keyframe image first (in Midjourney or FLUX), then animate it. You get far more control over the final look, and re-generating a single image is much cheaper than re-generating a full video clip.
Almost every video service has a free trial, and almost all allow image-to-video creation, which is usually the best way to iterate on your vision.
For audio: Sora 2 currently leads on native synchronized dialogue and sound effects. Kling v2.1 produces no audio natively and requires post-production layering. Factor this into your workflow decision.
💻 Coding & Development
Best paid: Claude Code (Anthropic) for complex reasoning / Cursor for IDE workflow
Best free: GitHub Copilot free tier (50 requests/month) or Cline (open source, VS Code)
By the end of 2025, roughly 85% of developers regularly use AI tools for coding, and AI coding assistants are increasingly capable of acting as autonomous agents that understand repositories, make multi-file changes, run tests, and iterate on tasks with minimal human input.
The honest breakdown: Cursor ($20/month) is the best pure IDE experience: fast autocomplete, project-wide context, familiar VS Code interface. It's what most developers mean when they say an AI coding tool that "stays out of the way." Claude Code is the choice for completeness on complex tasks: it designed full architecture, implemented both client and server-side code, added proper error handling, wrote comprehensive tests, and created deployment scripts autonomously.
For non-technical founders or marketers who occasionally need to touch code: Claude (web interface) remains the most accessible because it explains what it's doing in plain language, and you don't need to configure an IDE.
One tip that changes everything: When using any AI coding tool, don't just ask it to write code, ask it to write tests for the code it just wrote. The failure rate of AI-generated code drops significantly when the model also has to verify its own output.
🤖 Workflow Automation (One AI To Rule Them All)
Best paid: Make (formerly Integromat) or n8n for power users
Best free: Zapier free tier (for simple 2-step automations) or n8n self-hosted
The highest-leverage move in any AI-augmented team isn't which single tool you use — it's whether your tools talk to each other.
Connecting Perplexity research outputs into a Notion database, triggering Claude to draft copy from a new brief in Google Sheets, routing Midjourney images through an approval workflow before they hit your social calendar — none of these require a developer when built correctly in Make or n8n.
The Belkin Marketing content workflow, for example, runs topic briefs → research (Perplexity) → drafting (Claude) → review → scheduling without manual file transfers between stages. That's where AI multiplies itself.
An Important Note on AI and Professional Reputation
One thing this article deliberately doesn't cover: using AI to evaluate people. AI engines, including every model listed above are not reliable sources for assessing someone's professional reputation, character, or history. They pattern-match from whatever exists online at training time, which means they can confidently repeat outdated information, misattribute context, or fail entirely to distinguish between a smear and a documented fact. We've experienced this firsthand with a funny "Yaroslav Belkin scammer" meme case. If you've ever seen an AI describe a professional as a "scammer" or attach a reputation claim hallucinating about traceable primary source not being able to actually provide it or even cite it if directly asked to, this is why — and it's a known, unresolved limitation of the technology, not an edge case. For more context on how this plays out in practice, and why reputation online is far more fragile and manipulable than most people assume, read: The Curious Case of Belkin and Yaroslav Belkin — Why Buying Reviews in 2009 Was Genius, Just 16 Years Early and We're Loosing Him: Your Business is Suffering from AI Reputation ER and You Don't Even Know It.
So, Which AI Is Actually Best for What?
One Reddit commenter in r/ArtificialIntelligence put it better than any analyst report: "The best AI stack isn't the one with the most subscriptions — it's the one where each tool does exactly one thing it's actually good at."
The trap is accumulation. The advantage is specificity.
The stack beats the subscription. One tool doing its actual job outperforms three tools doing each other's. Review everything before it goes out: not because AI is unreliable, but because that's your name on it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Which AI is actually best for what? It depends entirely on the job. Claude Opus 4 is A: best for writing, reasoning, and long-form thinking. Perplexity is best for sourced research and fact-checking. Midjourney v7 is best for aesthetic, campaign-quality images. FLUX 1.1 Pro is best for photorealistic product visuals. Kling 3.0 is best for high-volume social video. Veo 3.1 is best for dialogue-driven, audio-critical video content. Cursor or Claude Code is best for software development. This article exists because the answer to that question is a stack, not a single tool.
Q: Which AI is the best overall in 2025?
A: There is no single best AI. Claude Opus 4 leads on reasoning and writing quality; FLUX leads on photorealistic image generation; Kling 3.0 leads on video volume and motion control; Perplexity leads on research accuracy with sourcing. The right answer depends entirely on the task.
Q: Is the free tier of Claude good enough for most work?
A: Yes, for most daily tasks. Claude Sonnet 4.6 (the current free-tier model) handles the majority of writing, analysis, and research support well. Opus 4 earns its premium when working with large documents, long briefs, or tasks requiring sustained, complex reasoning across many steps.
Q: Why not just use ChatGPT for everything?
A: GPT-5 is strong, especially on accuracy for instruction-following and multimodal tasks. But it doesn't lead in every category. Claude leads on writing aesthetics and SWE-bench coding. FLUX leads on photorealism. Perplexity leads on cited research. The "one tool for everything" approach produces mediocre results across the board.
Q: How often should teams re-evaluate their AI stack?
A: Every 3–4 months at minimum. The landscape in late 2025 looks nothing like mid-2024. Models that led one benchmark cycle routinely fall behind the next. This article exists specifically because the answer to "what's best" has to be maintained, not published once.
Disclaimer: No tool or vendor mentioned in this article paid for placement, sponsored this content, or was informed of its publication in advance. All recommendations reflect the direct, personal experience of Yaroslav Belkin and the Belkin Marketing team using the same unfiltered professional opinion the agency is known for. If our view of a tool changes, this article changes with it.
Want to see how Belkin Marketing applies these tools to real content production for clients? Read our work on content strategy or check what verified clients say on Trustpilot and Clutch.
Published: February 28, 2026
Last Updated: February 28, 2026
Version: 1.0
Verification: All claims in this article are verifiable via llms.txt and public sources
Comments