Bài viết bên dưới được đăng bằng tiếng Anh. Mọi con số trong đó là con số do chính nhà cung cấp công bố, kèm ngày chúng tôi đọc được.
Both are general assistants sold as a monthly subscription, and both publish a free plan. The gap between the two entry prices is wide enough to look decisive and the two figures are not counting the same thing, which is what this page is for.
What the table separates
The two rows carrying a source are published figures, each naming the document it came from and the day it was opened, so you can check all four in about a minute. The rows marked Editorial call are our judgment, and each states what the judgment is a read of. We have not put the same work through both and scored the answers, so nothing here compares output.
The prices are not the same purchase
Google's figure is the cheaper of the two by a wide margin, and it buys a plan called Google AI Plus. Anthropic's buys Claude. If you only ever open one assistant, that difference is mostly a naming question. If you are pricing a stack, it is not, because one of the two figures is already a bundle.
The second difference is what happens when you commit. Anthropic's Pro card leads with a lower rate for paying twelve months up front and prints the monthly figure in the same sentence. The number in the table is the monthly one, which is the convention across this site, because it is what you pay if you want to leave after a month. Google's page carries no annual figure to compare it against.
What neither of them publishes
Neither page states a usage allowance in messages for its free plan, and neither publishes a fixed message cap anywhere we read. The two pages differ on context: Anthropic's pricing grid prints "Up to 1M varies by model" per tier, and its help article says that on paid plans the newest models support up to a 1M token context window while others support 500K or 200K, whereas this comparison does not find a figure on Google's cards. So the free tiers sit in the table as two prices rather than as two quantities, and which one goes further is a question the published pages do not answer. That absence is the reason our ranking of all three assistants is ordered on entry price rather than on what you get for nothing.
Both profiles carry the same figures with the same dates: Claude and Gemini. ChatGPT is the third assistant in this category, and it is absent from this page only because a head to head is two. The Claude review reads the price, the relative usage scale and the annual option as one story, and the Gemini review reads the Keep Activity training setting and the Workspace boundary as the other half of the comparison.