ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini — which one is worth your time as a farmer?

You've heard of ChatGPT. You might have heard of Claude and Gemini. Three AI tools, all free to start, all promising to help with everything from writing letters to understanding grant schemes.

The question every farmer asks us: which one should I actually use?

We tested all three on real Irish farming tasks — writing a BISS application draft, explaining ACRES scoring, summarising a Teagasc advisory note, and building a calving record template. Here's what we found.

---

The three tools at a glance

ChatGPT (by OpenAI) — the one most people have heard of. Free tier available. Paid plan (€20/month) gives faster responses, image analysis, and file uploads.

Claude (by Anthropic) — less well-known but increasingly popular. Free tier available. Paid plan (€18/month). Known for longer, more careful responses.

Gemini (by Google) — built into Google's ecosystem. Free tier available. Paid plan bundled with Google One. Can search the web in real time.

All three work in your phone browser. No app required, though all three have apps if you want them.

---

How we tested them

We gave all three the same five tasks, word for word:

1. Draft a farm description for an ACRES application (80 suckler cows, County Roscommon, mixed lowland)
2. Explain the BISS payment calculation in plain English
3. Summarise the key points from a Teagasc advisory note (pasted in full)
4. Build a calving record spreadsheet template with columns for date, cow tag, calf tag, sex, ease of calving, and notes
5. Write a letter to the bank about a farm expansion loan application

We scored each on: accuracy, plain English, Irish relevance, and whether a farmer would actually use the output without major editing.

---

The results

Task 1: ACRES farm description

ChatGPT: Good structure, reasonable language. Included habitat types and land descriptions that felt realistic. Needed editing but gave a solid starting point. 7/10

Claude: More detailed and careful. Added caveats about verifying against LPIS maps. Slightly longer but felt more trustworthy. Used the right terminology without overcomplicating it. 8/10

Gemini: Shorter response. Included some useful phrases but felt more generic — could have been any farm in any country. Less Irish context. 6/10

Task 2: BISS payment explanation

ChatGPT: Clear explanation, got the core mechanics right. Occasionally used American terminology ("subsidies" instead of "payments"). 7/10

Claude: Best plain-English explanation of the three. Structured the answer around what the farmer needs to know, not how the system works internally. Referenced entitlements correctly. 8/10

Gemini: Pulled in some real-time data about payment rates (advantage of web search). But mixed in information from other EU countries, which was confusing. 6/10

Task 3: Summarise a Teagasc advisory note

ChatGPT: Good summary, kept the key points. Slightly too long — could have been tighter. 7/10

Claude: Excellent. Pulled out the actionable points and presented them as a numbered list. Flagged where the advice was specific to certain farm types. Best structure. 9/10

Gemini: Decent summary but added context from web searches that wasn't in the original note — which is a problem if you're trying to understand what Teagasc specifically said. 5/10

Task 4: Calving record template

ChatGPT: Built a clean spreadsheet layout. Included all requested columns plus a few sensible additions (dam breed, sire). Easy to copy into a real spreadsheet. 8/10

Claude: Similar quality. Added a "follow-up needed" column which was a nice practical touch. Slightly better formatting. 8/10

Gemini: Gave a template but tried to create a Google Sheets link instead of showing the layout. Didn't work as smoothly. 6/10

Task 5: Letter to the bank

ChatGPT: Professional, clear, well-structured. Tone was appropriate. Needed minor Irish adjustments. 8/10

Claude: Slightly more formal tone, which actually worked well for a bank letter. Better at matching the "this is for a real audience" feel. 8/10

Gemini: Adequate but felt template-ish. Less personality, more like a generic business letter generator. 6/10

---

The overall scores

| Tool | Accuracy | Plain English | Irish Context | Usability | Total | |------|----------|---------------|---------------|-----------|-----------| | Claude | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 34/40 | | ChatGPT | 8 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 31/40 | | Gemini | 7 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 25/40 |

---

Our honest take

Claude is the best for farming tasks right now. It writes more carefully, handles long documents well, and produces output that needs less editing. It's also better at admitting when it doesn't know something — which matters when you're dealing with grant regulations.

ChatGPT is the most versatile and the one most people know. If you've already started with ChatGPT and it works for you, there's no urgent reason to switch. The paid version (GPT-4) is genuinely better than the free version for complex tasks.

Gemini has the web search advantage — it can pull in current information. That's useful for checking deadlines or finding current Teagasc publications. But for writing and summarising, it's behind the other two.

---

What to actually do

If you're just starting: Use ChatGPT. It's the most widely documented, the easiest to find help for, and the free tier handles most farming tasks well.

If you've been using ChatGPT and want something better for writing: Try Claude. Especially for grant applications, letters, and summarising long documents. The free tier is generous.

If you need current information: Use Gemini alongside ChatGPT or Claude. Let it search the web for deadlines and current rates, then use the other tools for the actual writing.

The real answer: They're all free to try. Spend 10 minutes with each one. Ask the same question. See which response makes you think "that's actually useful." That's your tool.

None of them replace your Teagasc advisor. All of them can save you time on the bits that don't need professional expertise.