Qwen 3 VS Claude 4 VS Gemini VS Grok 4: Who Wins?

Today, I'm going to show you the ultimate AI coding battle that everyone's talking about. Four AI giants are about to fight for the coding crown. I tested them on seven crazy hard challenges that will blow your mind. You won't believe which AI destroyed the competition. This is the test that reveals the truth about AI coding in 2025. Get ready because the results are shocking. 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. So, here's what happened. I decided to run the ultimate test. Four of the most powerful AI models on the planet, all fighting for one thing. The title of best AI coder, we've got Quen 3-235B- A22B-2507. This is Alibaba's brand new monster just dropped and it's already making waves. This thing is their latest coding powerhouse that's designed to compete with the best. Then we have Claude for Opus, Anthropics coding beast. They claim it's the world's best coding model. It can code for 7 hours straight without stopping. And that's like having a developer who never gets tired. Next up is Gemini 2. 5 Pro, Google's latest and greatest. This model is supposed to be revolutionary. Google says it can handle any coding challenge you throw at it. And finally, Gro 4. This is the wild card. It's got that X factor that might surprise everyone. Here's the thing, though. Everyone talks about which AI is best, but nobody runs real tests. They just look at benchmarks, but benchmarks don't tell the whole story. You need real world challenges. So, I created seven brutal tests. These aren't simple coding tasks. These are the kind of projects that separate the winners from the losers. Let me tell you about test number one. HTML game with falling objects clicker. Here's the exact prompt I gave each AI. Build a simple HTML and JavaScript game where objects fall from the top of the screen and the player has to click them before they hit the ground. The game should include a start screen, score tracking, increasing difficulty over time, and work well on both desktop and mobile. I asked each AI to build a complete game, not just some basic code, a real game with all these features. This is where things got interesting. Gemini came out swinging, super fast response. The game actually worked. You could play it right away. No bugs, no crashes, just pure gaming goodness. Quen 3 COD was next. Built almost the same game. Pretty solid stuff. The mechanics worked great. Grock 4 followed with similar output. Nothing groundbreaking, but it did the job. But here's the twist. Claude 4 Opus was last to finish, but when I saw the UI, my jaw dropped. It was completely different from the others. Better design, cleaner interface, more professional looking. So, round one goes to Gemini for speed and functionality. But Claude gets style points. Test number two was brutal. Ay tool landing page. The prompt was, "Create a clean, modern landing page using only HTML and CSS for a fictional AI tool called Prompt Pilot. It should include a catchy headline, sub headline, hero, image, placeholder, a section with three features using icons, a testimonial carousel, and a bold animated call to action button. I wanted a complete landing page for this fake AI tool. Had to be modern, clean with all these specific elements. Gemini strikes again, first to finish. The landing page looks amazing. Great font combinations, professional design. This thing could fool anyone into thinking it was a real product. Quen came next, but the page was super plain. The text color was so light you could barely see it. Major fail on the user experience front. Gro 4 delivered something basic, not impressive. Looked like a landing page from 2015. Claude 4 Opus came last again, but wow, the UI was gorgeous. Perfect color choices, professional layout. If I was running a real AI company, I'd use this design. Here's what I'm seeing. Gemini is fast and functional. Claude is slow but beautiful. Quen 3-235B- A22B-2507 is hit or miss. Grock is basic. Test three changed everything. Multiplayer tic-tac-toe in the browser. Here's the prompt I used. Build a two-player tic-tac-toe game using HTML, CSS, and JavaScript that works in real time via websockets or a similar method. It should allow two users to play from different browsers with automatic wind detection and a restart option. This wasn't just any tic-tac-toe game. This had to work in real time. Two players in different browsers, websocket connections, wind detection, restart options. This is advanced stuff. Plot twist. Quen 3-235B- A 22B-2507 finish first. And the game actually worked. Nice UI, smooth gameplay, everything functioned perfectly. Claude came second. Good UI, working game, solid performance. Grock 4 was supposed to deliver a game, but when I checked, there was no game. Complete failure.

Gemini came last with a working game, but the UI looked terrible. Functional, but ugly. This is where Quen 3-235B- A22B-2507 showed its true power. When it comes to complex interactive applications, it's a beast. Test four was the browserbased markdown editor. The prompt, make a browserbased markdown editor using HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. The page should have a split screen layout with a markdown input on the left and a live preview on the right. Include buttons for bold, itallic, and links, and allow the user to export the content as a MD file. Split screen layout, live preview, export functionality. This is developer tool territory. Quen finish first. But here's the problem. And when I tried to preview anything, it threw errors. I tried to fix it, but the errors kept coming. Total disaster. Gemini came next with a working Markdown editor. Clean, functional, did exactly what it was supposed to do. Grock and Claude both built editors. But when you try to pace basic HTML, neither would preview it properly. Both failed the real world test. So Gemini takes this round for actually delivering something that works. Here's where things get crazy. Test five was portfolio website generator. My prompt was build a simple web tool where a user can enter their name, skills, and project descriptions. And when they click a generate button, it creates a styled onepage portfolio website, include an option to download the generated HTML file. I wanted a tool where users could enter their info, click generate, and boom, a complete portfolio website appears, plus the ability to download the HTML file. Jim and I finished first with a nice UI, but it had a fatal flaw. It didn't respond to user input. Beautiful, but broken. Quen had errors again. Starting to see a pattern here. Claude delivered something special. Good UI, working buttons, responsive design. Actually did the job it was supposed to do. Grock had the same functionality as Claude, but the UI looked basic. Still worked though. Claude wins this round for delivering both form and function. Test six blew my mind. Tower defense game. Here's the prompt. Create a simple 2D tower defense game using HTML 5 canvas and JavaScript where enemies follow a path and the player places towers to stop them. Include waves of increasing difficulty, basic tower upgrades, and a game over screen. This isn't just a game. This is a complete 2D tower defense system. Enemies following paths, towers that shoot, waves of increasing difficulty, tower upgrades, game over screens. This is serious game development. Quen finished first, but I couldn't figure out how to play the game. The UI was confusing. The mechanics weren't clear. It technically worked, but was unusable. Then Gemini delivered something incredible. This felt like a real game. Professional fonts, smooth mechanics, perfect UI. It was like playing a game from the app store. Absolutely insane for just one prompt. Gro's game didn't work properly. Major disappointment. Claude did the job, but it could use improvement. Functional, but not impressive. Gemini completely destroyed the competition here. No contest. Test seven was the ultimate challenge. First person maze escape 3D game. The final prompt. Create a basic firstperson 3D maze escape game in the browser using 3JS. The player should be able to move through a 3D maze using keyboard controls WD. Find a key and unlock an exit door to win. I wanted a full 3D maze game using 3JS. First person perspective keyboard controls with WD. Find a key, unlock an exit door. win the game. This is professional game development territory. Gemini was incredible. Created a full 3D maze that actually worked. You could move around, find the key, escape through the door. It felt like playing a real video game. Quen showed just a brown background. No interaction. Complete failure. Claude impressed me. Built a working 3D maze. You could navigate through it, find objectives, escape to win. Really solid implementation. Grock just showed a white background. Another complete failure. Gemini wins again with the most impressive 3D game. So, let's talk about what this all means. After running seven brutal tests, here's what I discovered. Gemini 2. 5 Pro is the speed demon. Fast responses, great UI design. When it works, it really works. Especially impressive with games and visual applications. Claude for Opus is the perfectionist. takes longer to respond but delivers higher quality code, better UI designs, more professional looking results. When you need something that looks good and works well, Claude delivers. Quen 3-235B- A22B-2507 is the wild card. Sometimes it's brilliant. The multiplayer tic-tac-toe was amazing, but sometimes it fails completely. Inconsistent, but has moments of genius. Grock 4 is the underdog. Basic, but functional most of the time. Not exciting, but gets the job done for simple projects. Here's the thing, though. The winner depends on what you need. If you want speed and impressive visual results, Gemini is your choice. It's perfect for prototypes

and demos that need to wow people. If you want professional quality code that looks good and works reliably, Claude for Opus is the winner. Yes, it's slower, but the results are worth waiting for. If you're feeling adventurous and want to try something with huge potential, Quen 3-235B- A22B-2507 might surprise you. Just be prepared for some inconsistency. And if you need something basic that just works, Gro 4 will do the job. But here's the real secret. The best coders don't rely on just one AI. They use multiple models for different tasks. Use Gemini for rapid prototyping and visual applications. Use Claude for production code that needs to be professional. Use Quen 3-235B- A22B-2507 when you want to experiment with cutting edge capabilities. This is exactly the kind of strategy we teach inside the AI profit boardroom. We have over 1,000 members who are scaling their businesses and saving hundreds of hours with AI automation. They're learning which AI tools work best for specific tasks. Julian Goldie reads every comment, so make sure you comment below and let me know which AI you think performed the best. Some AIs are better at content creation, others excel at technical analysis. Some are perfect for client communication. The same principle applies to coding. Master multiple tools and you'll outperform someone using just one AI, no matter how powerful that single AI is. If you want to learn more about building systems like this in your business, we offer free SEO strategy sessions. Link in the comments and description will show you exactly how we use AI to scale our agency and how you can do the same. Here's the bottom line from this coding battle. Each AI has strengths and weaknesses. Gemini impressed with speed and visual results. Claude delivered professional quality. Quen 3-235B- A22B-2507 showed innovative potential. Groke provided reliable basics. But the real winner is anyone who learns to use all these tools strategically. That's what we're teaching inside the AI success lab. real strategies, real results, real community of people who are building real businesses with these tools. The link is in the comments and description. Join us and let's build the future together. Thanks for watching. Make sure to subscribe for more AI battles and comparisons. Comment below with which AI you think won this coding challenge and I'll see you in the next video.