Introduction
Feeling lost in the world of code? Don’t worry, you’re not alone! AI assistants like Gemini and ChatGPT are here to help. But with two strong options, how do you choose? This guide will compares ChatGPT vs Gemini for code. We’ll see which one explains things better, helps you write cleaner code, and tackles those tricky programming problems. Get ready to find your perfect AI coding partner!
Table of contents
ChatGPT vs Gemini: Overview
| ChatGPT | Gemini | |
|---|---|---|
| Creators | OpenAI | |
| Language model | GPT-3.5 | Gemini Pro |
| Data sources | Massive text dataset (Sept. 2021 limit for Free tier), real-time web search (ChatGPT Plus)pen_spark | Likely web archives (Common Crawl), image-text databases, proprietary data; real-time web search capabilitiespen_spark |
| Supported languages | 9 including English, Chinese, French, and Spanish | Over 40 including all the same ones supported by ChatGPT |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
Why use AI Chatbots for Code Generation?
There are several compelling reasons to use AI chatbots for code generation:
- AI chatbots can automate repetitive coding tasks like writing boilerplate code, generating basic functions, and suggesting code snippets. This frees you up to focus on the more creative and strategic aspects of coding.
- They can analyze existing code and suggest improvements, helping you catch bugs and write cleaner, more efficient code.
- Feeling stuck? AI chatbots can offer suggestions and complete partial code, helping you get past roadblocks and keep your coding momentum going.
- They can explain complex programming concepts and suggest alternative approaches, accelerating your learning curve and expanding your coding skillset.
- The best AI chatbots are constantly learning and adapting to new coding trends and libraries. This can help you stay on top of the latest developments in your chosen programming language.
- Some AI chatbots can understand and generate code in multiple languages, which can be a huge advantage if you’re working on international projects.
Also Read: 12 AI Tools That Can Generate Code To Help Programmers
Let’s look at some examples to compare chatGPT vs Gemini for Coding!
Gemini vs ChatGPT: Developing a Website
This section compares Gemini and ChatGPT, two powerful AI assistants for coders. We analyze their strengths in understanding code, generating different parts of a website, and explaining complex concepts.
Prompt:
Basic HTML code for a word-counting website.
ChatGPT
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Word Count Tool</title>
<style>
body {
font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
padding: 20px;
}
textarea {
width: 100%;
height: 200px;
margin-bottom: 10px;
padding: 10px;
font-size: 16px;
border: 1px solid #ccc;
border-radius: 5px;
}
#wordCount {
font-size: 18px;
font-weight: bold;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Word Count Tool</h1>
<p>Type or paste your text below:</p>
<textarea id="textInput" placeholder="Enter your text here..."></textarea>
<button onclick="countWords()">Count Words</button>
<p>Word count: <span id="wordCount">0</span></p>
<script>
function countWords() {
var text = document.getElementById('textInput').value;
// Remove extra white spaces and trim the text
text = text.trim().replace(/\s+/g, ' ');
var wordCount = text.split(' ').filter(function(word) {
return word.length > 0;
}).length;
document.getElementById('wordCount').textContent = wordCount;
}
</script>
</body>
</html>Output:
Gemini
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<title>Word Counter</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Word Counter</h1>
<div class="container">
<textarea id="text-input" placeholder="Enter your text here..."></textarea>
<div id="output"></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
Output:
Final Outcome of Gemini vs ChatGPT for Developing a Website
The code generated by ChatGPT gave a better result.
ChatGPT vs Gemini for Generating a Python Code
Prompt:
Write a fully documented Python code to load and read the breast cancer dataset from the sklearn library, and then give me some insights from the data along with visualizations, and then use multiple algorithms and choose the one machine learning model to use on the dataset and give the results for the model as well.
ChatGPT
# Import necessary libraries
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import seaborn as sns
from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split, cross_val_score
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score, classification_report
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn.svm import SVC
from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier
from sklearn.neighbors import KNeighborsClassifier
from sklearn.model_selection import GridSearchCV
# Load the breast cancer dataset
data = load_breast_cancer()
# Extract features and target
X = data.data
y = data.target
# Create a DataFrame for better visualization
df = pd.DataFrame(data=np.c_[X, y], columns=np.append(data.feature_names, ['target']))
df['target'] = df['target'].astype(int)
# Split the data into training and testing sets
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2, random_state=42)
# Standardize features
scaler = StandardScaler()
X_train_scaled = scaler.fit_transform(X_train)
X_test_scaled = scaler.transform(X_test)
# Insights and Visualizations
# 1. Distribution of target classes
plt.figure(figsize=(6, 4))
sns.countplot(data=df, x='target')
plt.title('Distribution of Target Classes')
plt.xlabel('Target')
plt.ylabel('Count')
plt.show()
# 2. Correlation between features
plt.figure(figsize=(12, 8))
sns.heatmap(df.corr(), annot=True, cmap='coolwarm', fmt='.2f')
plt.title('Correlation Heatmap')
plt.show()
# 3. Pairplot of a few important features
plt.figure(figsize=(12, 8))
sns.pairplot(df[['mean radius', 'mean texture', 'mean perimeter', 'mean area', 'target']], hue='target', diag_kind='kde')
plt.show()
# Choose the best suitable machine learning model
# Models to be evaluated: Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, K-Nearest Neighbors
models = {
"Logistic Regression": LogisticRegression(max_iter=10000),
"Support Vector Machine": SVC(kernel='linear'),
"Random Forest": RandomForestClassifier(n_estimators=100),
"K-Nearest Neighbors": KNeighborsClassifier()
}
# Evaluate models using cross-validation
results = {}
for name, model in models.items():
scores = cross_val_score(model, X_train_scaled, y_train, cv=5)
results[name] = scores.mean()
# Print cross-validation results
print("Cross-validation results:")
for name, score in results.items():
print(f"{name}: {score:.4f}")
# Select the best model
best_model_name = max(results, key=results.get)
best_model = models[best_model_name]
print("\nBest model:", best_model_name)
# Train and evaluate the best model
best_model.fit(X_train_scaled, y_train)
y_pred_train = best_model.predict(X_train_scaled)
y_pred_test = best_model.predict(X_test_scaled)
train_accuracy = accuracy_score(y_train, y_pred_train)
test_accuracy = accuracy_score(y_test, y_pred_test)
print("\nTraining Accuracy:", train_accuracy)
print("Testing Accuracy:", test_accuracy)
print("\nClassification Report:")
print(classification_report(y_test, y_pred_test))Output:
These are the insights given by the code generated by ChatGPT:
Best suited Machine Learning Model:
Gemini
import pandas as pd
from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn.svm import SVC
from sklearn.neighbors import KNeighborsClassifier
from sklearn.tree import DecisionTreeClassifier
from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier
from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score, classification_report
# Load the breast cancer dataset
data = load_breast_cancer()
# Convert data and target to pandas dataframe
df = pd.DataFrame(data.data, columns=data.feature_names)
df['target'] = data.target
print(df.info())
# Check distribution of target variable (malignant or benign)
df['target'].value_counts().plot(kind='bar')
# Explore features with boxplots (consider features you might find interesting)
df.plot(kind='box', subplots=True, figsize=(12, 12))
# Split data into training and testing sets
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(df.drop('target', axis=1), df['target'], test_size=0.2)
# Define and train multiple machine learning models
models = []
models.append(('Logistic Regression', LogisticRegression()))
models.append(('SVC', SVC()))
models.append(('KNN', KNeighborsClassifier()))
models.append(('Decision Tree', DecisionTreeClassifier()))
models.append(('Random Forest', RandomForestClassifier()))
# Evaluate each model and print results
for name, model in models:
model.fit(X_train, y_train)
y_pred = model.predict(X_test)
print(f"\n--- {name} Results ---")
print(f"Accuracy: {accuracy_score(y_test, y_pred)}")
print(classification_report(y_test, y_pred))
# Choose the best performing model based on your evaluation criteria (e.g., accuracy)
best_model_name, best_model = models[0] # Modify this to choose the best model
# Train the chosen model on the entire training data
best_model.fit(X_train, y_train)
# Use the best model to predict on unseen data (X_test)
y_pred = best_model.predict(X_test)
# Print final evaluation results for the best model
print(f"\n--- Final Results ({best_model_name}) ---")
print(f"Accuracy: {accuracy_score(y_test, y_pred)}")
print(classification_report(y_test, y_pred))Output:
Insights given by Gemini code:
Best suited ML Model:
Gemini vs ChatGPT for Coding: Which is Better?
The effectiveness of the output depends on the purpose and the goal:
ChatGPT code focuses more on feature preprocessing, exploration, and model selection:
- Scales features, which can be crucial for many machine learning algorithms, particularly distance-based ones like SVM or KNN.
- Provides visualizations for better understanding the data, such as distribution plots, correlation heatmaps, and pairplots.
- Evaluates models with cross-validation, providing a more robust estimate of model performance.
- Selects the best model based on cross-validation scores.
Gemini code is more focused on evaluating multiple models quickly and choosing the best performing one based on accuracy:
- It doesn’t scale features, which might lead to suboptimal performance for certain models.
- It directly compares multiple models and selects the best one based on test set accuracy.
- It provides a quick evaluation of models without much emphasis on feature exploration.
If you’re interested in a detailed understanding of data and model performance and you have computational resources to support cross-validation, ChatGPT code would be better. On the other hand, if you want a quick overview of different models’ performance and prioritize model accuracy, Gemini might be more suitable.
Conclusion
In both of these examples, we witnessed ChatGPT and Gemini outperforming each other depending on the specific use case and prompt provided. As a coder or data science professional, it’s crucial to understand your objectives clearly and utilize these tools as support to establish a foundation for your project. However, it’s undeniable that a certain level of human intervention is necessary in both scenarios.
What are your thoughts? Feel free to share them in the comments below!
For more such informational content, keep following us on Analytics Vidhya Blogs.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. Is Gemini 1.5 better than ChatGPT?
A. It depends on the task. Gemini 1.5 and ChatGPT excel in different areas. Gemini may be better for certain tasks like brainstorming, while ChatGPT might be better for natural language understanding.
Q2. Which GPT is better for coding?
A. ChatGPT tends to be more suitable for coding tasks due to its understanding of programming languages and syntax. It can generate code snippets and assist in debugging.
Q3. Can Gemini AI generate code?
A. Gemini AI is primarily designed for content creation and collaboration, rather than generating code. It’s not specifically trained for coding tasks like ChatGPT is.
Q4. Is ChatGPT or Bard better at coding?
A. ChatGPT is generally considered better at coding due to its specific training in programming languages and syntax. Bard is more focused on creative writing tasks rather than coding assistance.
Hello, I am Nitika, a tech-savvy Content Creator and Marketer. Creativity and learning new things come naturally to me. I have expertise in creating result-driven content strategies. I am well versed in SEO Management, Keyword Operations, Web Content Writing, Communication, Content Strategy, Editing, and Writing.
