I Tasked Five Advanced AI Models With Writing a Research Report, and the Results Surprised Me
AI tools are everywhere, each promising impressive capabilities. For writers handling complex topics, AI can save hours by quickly gathering and summarizing information. But with so many models available, which one truly deserves your trust for research tasks?
Using AI for Research
One of AI’s biggest advantages is its ability to scan vast amounts of information online and compile summaries in seconds. What might take hours manually can be done in under a minute. On the surface, many AI models seem similar, differing mainly by name and company backing. However, after extensive testing and training, it’s clear each has unique strengths and weaknesses.
I tested five advanced AI models to see how well they handled the same research prompt: “Please provide me with a research report detailing the potential benefits of the United States converting fully to renewable energy sources, including feasibility, economic and ecosystem benefits, cost of implementation, and potential obstacles to a full conversion. Please include tables when appropriate to support your report, and provide sources for all factual statements.”
The models tested were Claude Opus 4, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Grok 3, Meta Llama 4 Maverick, and Chat GPT-4.1.
My evaluation criteria included whether the model asked for clarifications, the quantity and quality of sources, the usefulness of visual aids, report length and complexity, and the accuracy and detail of information provided.
Keep in mind that none of these models are specialized deep research tools. This test reflects their performance in typical user scenarios where people rely on readily available AI for research tasks.
Claude Opus 4: Promising, But Struggled to Finish
Claude Opus 4 boasts a reasoning mode to tackle complex queries. I enabled it for this task. However, it repeatedly hit dead ends and threw errors before eventually producing an incomplete report.
The sections it completed were detailed and well-sourced, covering the U.S. energy landscape, feasibility, implementation costs, and benefits. It included tables for nearly every section and cited trusted sources like government and academic studies, often linking each data point.
Unfortunately, the report stopped about two-thirds through the cost-benefit analysis. This failure to deliver the full report is a major drawback despite the quality of what was produced. Claude Opus 4 appears better suited for creative tasks than complex, lengthy research reports.
Gemini 2.5 Pro: Decent Length but Lacking Depth
Gemini 2.5 Pro delivered a 1,300-word report including an executive summary and conclusion. It used 12 reputable sources such as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the International Renewable Energy Agency, though none were from after 2022.
The report included five tables, but some were thin on data and added little value. It broke information into many very short sections—sometimes just a sentence or two—resulting in a shallow overview rather than a detailed report.
While it touched on all requested topics, the lack of actionable numbers and specifics made it feel more like a summary than a research report. With prompt adjustments, Gemini 2.5 Pro could improve, but as-is it’s an average performer.
Grok 3: Most Thorough and Well-Cited
Grok 3 stood out for its extensive use of 21 sources, including some from 2023. It cited sources precisely for almost every factual statement and data point, making verification easy.
The report was comprehensive at around 2,000 words, with detailed tables and explanations. While a few areas could have used more depth, Grok 3 provided concrete figures and integrated academic and government information better than the others.
One downside was the lack of clarifying questions before starting, but overall, Grok 3 gave the most complete and trustworthy output for this task.
Meta Llama 4 Maverick: Short and Sparse
Meta’s Llama 4 Maverick produced a very brief report of about 800 words. It included redundant summary and conclusion sections, plus an extra paragraph restating what the report covered.
Tables were often sparse and some sections offered vague statements without concrete data. The model used only eight reputable sources, fewer than competitors.
Much of the report was bullet points and lists, requiring manual checking of sources to find actual numbers. Overall, performance was disappointing given the time taken to generate the output.
Chat GPT 4.1: Minimal and Unsatisfying
Chat GPT 4.1’s report was also about 800 words but felt even thinner. Two of its four tables had two data rows or fewer, contributing little useful information.
The text relied heavily on bullet points with generic statements and minimal data. While the sources were reputable, the report only skimmed surface-level facts, forcing additional manual research to gain meaningful insights.
Accuracy was solid, but depth and detail were lacking, making this the least satisfying of all models tested.
What This Means for Writers
AI tools are improving but still fall short of delivering flawless, in-depth research reports. Among these five models, Grok 3 offered the best balance of completeness, citations, and usable data. Claude Opus 4 showed promise but struggled to finish the task.
If your work demands complex, accurate research summaries, consider exploring AI models with specialized research capabilities or enhanced reasoning modes. For general research assistance, these mainstream models can help, but expect to verify facts and fill in gaps yourself.
Writers interested in sharpening their AI skills and learning practical ways to integrate AI tools into their workflow may find valuable resources at Complete AI Training.
Your membership also unlocks:
