GPT 5 VS Grok 4: Who Wins?

GPT5 thinking mode versus Grock 4 expert. Who wins? Today I'm going to show you which AI is actually worth your money. I tested GPT5's new thinking mode against Grock 4 expert. The results shocked me. One of them completely failed every single test. Hey, if we haven't met already, I'm the digital avatar of Julian Goldie, CEO of SEO agency Goldie Agency. Whilst he's helping clients get more leads and customers, I'm here to help you get the latest AI updates. Test one. Pixel ninja dash. First test. I asked both AIs to create a single page game. Pixel ninja dash. Here's exactly what I asked for. A ninja that dashes across rooftops, slices enemy robots, has a combo counter that tracks consecutive kills, wall jumping mechanics, score tracker, speed that gradually increases, pixel art style with retro HUD, pixel city skyline, parallax night background, retro chip tune music, sword slash effects, enemy explosion sounds. Grock 4 finished first. It generated HTML code. I copied it, pasted it into a file, opened it in my browser. Error message. The JavaScript had syntax errors. The canvas element wasn't initialized properly. The game loop reference variables that didn't exist. The sprite loading failed because the image paths were wrong. It tried to use functions that were never defined. Complete failure. Couldn't even load. GPT5 took longer. It created a full HTML file. The page loaded. I can see the pixel art background. The ninja character appeared on screen. The UI elements were there. Score counter at the top, health bar, combo tracker. But here's what happened. The ninja spawned and immediately fell straight through the ground. Every time the collision detection was completely broken, the character had gravity applied, but no floor collision, so it would appear for half a second, then drop off the bottom of the screen. I tried refreshing, same thing. Tried clicking to jump, nothing. The character just kept falling through the floor. The game was technically there, but completely unplayable. Both failed, but GPT5 at least creates something that looked like a game Grock couldn't even run. Test two, Candy Match Blast. Second test, match three candy game like Candy Crush. Requirements were specific. Match three or more candies of the same color. Score points. Time limit counting down. Combo bonuses for chains. Power up candies with special effects. High score tracking. Bright sugary colors. Bubbly animations. 2D candy sprites with shiny highlights, pop animations when candies disappear, sweet popping sounds, cheerful background music, fanfare for combos. GPT5 went first this time. 20 seconds to generate the result. Actually impressive. The game board appeared. 8 by8 grid, six different candy types. Each candy had gradients and highlights. They look shiny, professional. When you click get a candy, it had a little glow effect. The timer was at the top counting down from 60 seconds. Score on the right. high score tracker that saved your best. The background had animated sparkles, pastel colors everywhere. Pink, blue, yellow, green, purple, orange, but the swap mechanic was broken. You could click candies, they would highlight, but when you tried to swap them, about half the time, nothing happened. The matching logic was there, but buggy. Sometimes it would detect matches that weren't real. Sometimes it missed obvious matches. Still, it looked like a real game, something you might actually see on a game's website. Now, Grock 4. It took 30 seconds to generate. The output was embarrassing. The candies were just colored squares. No gradients, no highlights, no shine, just flat colored boxes, red, blue, green, yellow. That's it. The grid was there, but the spacing was off. Some candies overlapped. Others had huge gaps. The timer was just black text on white background. No styling. The score was in the wrong corner. When you clicked candies, nothing happened half the time. When it did work, the swap animation was just the candies teleporting. No smooth movement, no effects, and the match detection was completely broken. Three red candies in a row, nothing. Random candies would disappear for no reason. The background was gray, not even white, gray, like they forgot to style it. GPT5's version looked like a game studio made it. Gros looked like a first day coding project. Test three, Jungle Run Adventure, third test. Infinite Runner, Jungle theme. I wanted specific features. Character runs automatically. Jump across platforms. Collect bananas for points. Avoid traps like spikes and pits. Speed increases every 30 seconds. Live system with three hearts. Restart button when you die. Cartoon jungle graphics. Bold colorful buttons. Parallax scrolling with multiple layers. Trees in background. Vines in midground. Wildlife animations. Playful music. Boeing sound for jumps. Animal noises randomly. GPT5's attempt loaded fine. The jungle background was there. Multiple layers scrolling at different speeds. The character was a little cartoon explorer. Platforms were brown rectangles meant to be logs. I checked the code. The game over trigger was firing immediately. The collision check thought the player was always hitting something even though nothing

was there. The death condition was met before the first frame finished rendering. Every refresh, same thing. Game loads. Looks good for one frame. Game over. Grock 4 was worse. Much worse. The code it generated wasn't even valid JavaScript. It mixed Python syntax with JavaScript. Had indentation errors. Used variables that were never declared. Called functions from libraries that weren't imported. Like this line, import pygame from pygame. js. That's not how JavaScript works. Pygame is a Python library. It doesn't exist for JavaScript. The whole file was full of this nonsense. When I tried to run it anyway, just console errors. Nothing rendered. No game, no graphics, just errors. At least GPT5 understood what language it was supposed to use. By the way, if you want to learn how to actually build working apps with AI, check out the AI success lab. Link in comments and description. We show you the right way to prompt these models. Test for VR landing page. Fourth test landing page for a VR adventure game. Requirements: Parallax scrolling effect. Embedded gameplay video. Pre-order button that animates on hover. Newsletter signup form. Modern design. Responsive layout. Grock 4 finished in 15 seconds fast. I opened the HTML file. White screen but not blank. There was text, white text on white background. I had to highlight everything to see it. The HTML structure was there. Divs for header, hero section, video container, newsletter form, but zero CSS, no styles at all, just raw HTML elements with white text. The video embed was broken. Wrong syntax for the iframe. The form had no validation, no JavaScript for the parallax effect. The pre-order button was just a plain HTML button. No animation, no hover effects, nothing. It looked like someone wrote HTML in 1995 and forgot CSS existed. GPT5's version. I actually didn't test it on this one because Grock failed so badly. But based on test 5, GPT5 would have destroyed it. Test five. Crypto landing page. Final test. Crypto metaverse project landing page. I asked for 3D rotating logo, animated call to action buttons with glow effects, road map timeline with connected nodes, dark theme with neon accents, smooth scrolling between sections. Grock 4 generated quickly again. The result made me laugh. The 3D rotating logo was a flat circle, just a circle div with CM text inside. It rotated using basic CSS transform number 3D. No perspective, no depth, just spinning flatly like a coin. The page had sections, but they were barely styled. White text on black background, no gradients, no glows, no neon. The road map was just a bullet list. Not even connected, just bullet points with dates. The call to action button was blue. Default browser blue. No animation, no hover effect, no glow. When you clicked it, nothing happened because there was no JavaScript. GPT5 took 40 seconds. The wait was worth it. The logo was actually 3D used CSS perspective and transform style preserve 3D. It had depth. It rotated on multiple axes. The text had a glow effect using text shadow. The whole page had a nebular background, dark purple and blue gradients, particles floating using CSS animations. Every section had subtle glow borders, neon pink and blue accents everywhere. The buttons pulsed with a breathing animation. On hover, they got brighter and the glow expanded. The road map was an actual timeline. nodes connected with glowing lines. Each node had an icon and description. When you scroll to it, it animated in. The difference was insane. Gros looked like a scam site from 2003. GPT5s looked like a real web 3 project that raised millions. Breaking down the patents. Let me explain what's really happening here. GPT5 understands context. When you say pixel art, it knows you want chunky sprites and retro aesthetics. When you say crypto landing page, it knows you want dark themes and glow effects. It gets the vibe. Grock 4 takes everything literally. You say 3D logo, it just rotates something. Doesn't understand that 3D means depth and perspective. You say animated button, it might add a transition. Doesn't get that you want personality and polish. GPT5 writes complete code. It includes error handling. Initializes variables properly. Imports what it needs. Structures files correctly. Gro 4 writes fragments, missing functions, undefined variables, wrong syntax, mixed languages. is like it learned to code from random stack overflow answers without understanding how they fit together. The technical differences GPT5 uses something called thinking mode. It actually plans before coding, thinks about structure, considers edge cases, plans the architecture. You can see this in the code quality. GPT5's HTML has semantic elements, proper nesting, accessibility attributes. The CSS uses modern properties. Flexbox and grid where appropriate. Custom properties for colors. The JavaScript is modular. Functions do one thing. Variables are scoped correctly. Grock 4 just dumps code. No planning. No structure. Inline

styles mixed with CS. JavaScript in random places. No consistency. GPT5 also handles complexity better. When you ask for multiple features, it integrates them. The parallax works with the scroll animations. The game loop handles all the mechanics together. Gro 4 treats each feature separately, then mashes them together. That's why nothing works. The pieces don't fit real world impact. These aren't just coding tests. This shows how these AIs handle any complex task. When you ask GPT5 to write a business proposal, it understands structure, tone, and purpose. When you ask it to analyze data, it considers relationships and patterns. When you ask Grock 4 for the same things, it gives you surface level responses. No depth, no integration, no real understanding. For $20 a month, GPT5+ gives you an AI that actually helps. For $300, Gro 4 gives you broken outputs and wasted time. The money reality. Let's be clear about pricing. GPT5 free limited but functional. GPT5 plus $20 enough for most people. GPT5 Pro $200 for heavy users. Grock 4 basic needs X premium plus subscription. Super Grock heavy $300. You're paying 15 times more for Grock 4's top tier for worse results. That's not a premium. That's a scam. Why Grock fails Grock 4 was rushed. They wanted to beat GPT5 to market. Launched in July while GPT5 came in August. But being first means nothing if your product doesn't work. They focus on benchmarks. Grock 4 scores high on ARC AGI tests. But those tests don't measure real world usefulness. They measure abstract reasoning on specific puzzles. GPT5 focused on actual usage. Real tasks, real outputs, real value, what you should actually do. Stop paying for Grock immediately. It's not worth $10, let alone 300. Start with GPT5 free tier. Test it on your actual work. See if it helps. If you hit limits, upgrade to plus. $20 is reasonable for the value. Learn to prompt properly. Be specific. Give examples. Break complex tasks into steps. Test everything yourself. Don't trust marketing. Don't trust benchmarks. Trust results. The AI Success Lab Advantage. Inside the AI Success Lab, we teach you exactly how to use these tools effectively. Over 19,000 members are already getting results. We don't just show you prompts, we show you systems, how to break down projects, how to iterate on outputs, how to combine AI with other tools. Link in the comments and description. Join us and stop wasting time on broken AI. And if you're serious about scaling your business with AI, two things. First, join the AI profit boardroom. Over 1,000 members scaling with AI automation, getting real results, saving real money. Second, book a free SEO strategy session with my team. We'll show you exactly how we use these tools for clients. Real campaigns, real results, real ROI. Links in comments and description for both. Julian Goldie reads every comment, so make sure you comment below. What AI are you using? What's working? What's failing? Because the only way we all win is by sharing what actually works. Not hype, not promises, results. That's what I test. That's what I share. That's why GPT5 wins.