Claude vs Gemini in 2026

Claude is the better fit for people who want a focused AI workbench for writing, coding, documents and sustained analytical work. Gemini is the better fit for people whose productivity already depends on Google's ecosystem. Both can search the web, research, analyse files and reason over long context; the practical difference is where the work lives and how deeply the assistant is integrated with that environment.

Claude Pro is $20 per month or $200 per year, which works out to about $17 per month on the annual plan. Claude Max is available at $100 and $200 monthly usage tiers. Google AI Pro is currently $19.99 per month in the US and includes 5 TB of storage plus Gemini features across Google products. At the mainstream tier, Claude is cheaper if you commit annually; Gemini can be better value if the Google bundle replaces storage or other services you would otherwise buy.

Choose Claude if the AI workspace itself is where you want difficult work to happen. Choose Gemini if Gmail, Docs, Sheets, Drive and Search are where the work already happens. For organisations, compare Claude Team or Enterprise with the relevant Google Workspace offering rather than extrapolating from consumer plans.

For deeper product analysis, read our Claude review and Google Gemini review.

This comparison is for professionals who are choosing an AI assistant for real work rather than casual experimentation: writers, developers, consultants, analysts, researchers, founders and teams that spend hours inside documents, code, research or office software.

Claude and Gemini overlap heavily on raw capability, so the useful comparison is not a list of everything each can do. It is a decision analysis: which workflow feels more coherent, what you pay for, how much context you can use, where your data lives and whether the assistant will be deployed personally or across an organisation.

The article uses current official pricing and support information available on 7 October 2026. Because model line-ups and limits change quickly, it treats model names as current facts rather than permanent buying advantages.

Claude is designed as a focused AI working environment. Its value is strongest when the user opens Claude specifically to think, write, code, analyse, research or complete a multi-step project. Anthropic has expanded that environment with Projects, Claude Code, Cowork, Design, Slides, Docs, Science, research and app connections.

Gemini is designed both as a standalone assistant and as an AI layer distributed across Google's ecosystem. The standalone app is important, but Google can also place Gemini inside Gmail, Docs, Sheets, Drive, Search, Chrome and Android. That changes the meaning of integration: the AI does not always need to be the destination because it can appear where the task already lives.

This is why two users can reach opposite conclusions without either being wrong. A consultant who spends hours developing a report may prefer Claude's concentrated workbench. An operations manager who spends the day in Gmail and Sheets may get more value from Gemini even when both models can answer the same prompt.

Claude Pro costs $20 per month in the US or $200 per year, which Anthropic describes as roughly $17 per month with the annual discount. The plan includes more usage than Free, Claude Code, Cowork, Design, Science, unlimited Projects, Research and access to more Claude models. The annual option is one of Claude's clearest pricing advantages for a regular individual user.

Claude Max is aimed at people who work with Claude all day. Anthropic currently offers Max 5x at $100 per month and Max 20x at $200 per month. The important point is that these are capacity purchases. Most users should not jump from Pro to Max unless they repeatedly hit limits and can attach clear value to the extra usage.

Google AI Pro is currently $19.99 per month in the US and includes 5 TB of Google storage, four-times-higher Gemini usage limits than the non-AI plan, the Pro model, Deep Research, Gemini in Google apps and other bundle benefits. That makes a simple AI-to-AI price comparison incomplete.

If you only value the assistant, Claude's annual Pro plan is cheaper. If you need storage and Google integration anyway, Gemini may deliver more total value. This is a recurring theme throughout the comparison: Claude wins on focused product value, Gemini on ecosystem value.

Claude Free is unusually capable for testing the core product. Anthropic currently lists web search, memory across conversations, file creation, code execution, connectors and extended thinking among free capabilities, although usage is limited. Free access lets a buyer understand whether Claude's interface and working style fit before committing.

Gemini also provides a free tier with access to current Gemini models, but paid plans materially increase context and usage. Google's documentation lists 32,000 tokens without an AI plan, 128,000 on AI Plus and 1 million on AI Pro and Ultra.

A free-plan test should therefore focus on workflow rather than quota. Ask both tools to complete the same representative job. Judge how easily you can provide context, iterate, verify the answer and turn it into a finished deliverable. That reveals more than counting free messages.

Anthropic's current pricing pages advertise access to more Claude models on Pro and higher usage on Max, while the company continues to release specialised capabilities around coding, research and science. Google's Gemini Apps expose multiple Gemini 3-class models and adjustable thinking levels, with the highest reasoning mode reserved for the top plan.

The practical difference is not simply which vendor has the newer frontier model. Claude tends to make the model feel like the centre of a long collaborative session. Gemini tends to make the model one component of a broader Google workflow.

Professionals should evaluate reasoning with domain-specific tasks and explicit success criteria. Ask the assistant to show assumptions, identify uncertainty and revise after critique. A model that produces an impressive first answer but resists correction may be less useful than one that improves reliably over several turns.

Both platforms now support extremely large context at the high end. Google explicitly documents 1 million tokens on AI Pro and AI Ultra. Anthropic says Claude context can reach up to 1 million tokens depending on the model and product configuration.

That narrows what used to be an obvious marketing distinction. The relevant question becomes how the product behaves with large context: can it navigate the material, preserve instructions, cite or trace claims, and remain coherent over long sessions? Raw token capacity is useful, but retrieval quality and instruction adherence still decide whether that capacity produces value.

Claude is especially attractive for long document workflows because the surrounding product is built around sustained work. Gemini can be equally compelling when those documents already live in Drive or need to become Docs, Sheets or other Google outputs.

Claude has a particularly strong reputation among professional users for long-form writing and revision, but a useful review should explain why the product suits that work rather than treating reputation as proof. Claude's interface, Projects, long context, file creation and document-oriented features make it natural to develop a piece over many turns rather than generate a one-off paragraph.

That is valuable for proposals, reports, policy drafts, technical documentation, scripts and other work where coherence across a long document matters. Claude can act as an editor, critic and restructuring partner as well as a generator.

Gemini can also produce strong writing, and it has a different operational advantage: the text may already live in Google Docs or Gmail. A team that spends more time moving drafts than creating them can save effort through native placement even if a writer personally prefers Claude's prose.

Writers should therefore test revision quality, not only initial generation. Give each tool a flawed passage, ask for a diagnosis, require a rewrite under constraints and then ask it to explain what changed. That is closer to professional editing than asking for a generic blog post.

Claude Pro includes Claude Code, and Anthropic has invested heavily in coding and agentic software-development workflows. For developers, this is one of the strongest reasons to choose Claude because the subscription is not limited to chat-based code snippets; it connects the model to a more active development workflow.

Anthropic has also increased Claude Code usage limits during 2026 and introduced additional developer and security capabilities. That indicates a strategic commitment to coding as a core product area rather than an incidental use case.

Gemini is a serious coding competitor, particularly for users invested in Google's developer ecosystem. Its Pro model is explicitly positioned for complex coding and math, and Google's broader AI and cloud tooling can make Gemini strategically attractive for teams already using that environment.

For a developer choosing one general subscription without ecosystem constraints, Claude has the clearer focused proposition. For an Android, Google Cloud or Google AI-heavy team, Gemini can fit more naturally into the surrounding stack.

Claude supports web search and Research on paid plans. Anthropic has described Research as a multi-step process that can investigate many sources and produce reports with citations. Integrations also allow Claude to use connected internal tools and data sources during research.

Gemini's Deep Research is similarly designed for multi-step investigations, but Google Search is built into the process by default. Users can add Gmail, Drive and NotebookLM sources when connected. That makes Gemini particularly attractive for research that spans public information and personal Google data.

Claude's advantage is continuity with the rest of the project. A research report can live beside working documents, code, project context and other Claude tools. Gemini's advantage is reach across Google's information ecosystem.

In both products, citations should be opened. AI can cite a real source and still misstate what the source says. A proper research workflow distinguishes source discovery from source verification.

Claude Pro includes unlimited Projects, which organise chats and documents around continuing work. Memory across conversations is also part of the broader product. This matters because professional value often comes from continuity: the assistant understands a client, codebase or project context over time rather than starting from zero.

Gemini offers its own forms of persistence, including connected apps, Gems and account-level context. Google's advantage is that persistent information may already exist across the user's Google environment, reducing the need to re-upload or recreate it.

The risk is dependence. As more context accumulates inside an AI platform, switching becomes harder. Businesses should keep canonical documents and decisions in standard repositories rather than letting chat history become the only source of institutional knowledge.

Claude has expanded beyond text responses into file and artifact creation. Current Pro benefits include Design, Slides and Docs, and Claude can create files and execute code. That makes it more useful for people who want the assistant to produce tangible deliverables instead of only advice.

Gemini's path to finished work is different. Google already owns major productivity destinations, so the AI can help produce material that belongs in Docs, Sheets, Slides and other Google applications. The product does not need to reinvent every document surface if it can work inside an existing one.

For a consultant delivering standalone files, Claude can feel more coherent. For a team collaborating natively in Workspace, Gemini's destination advantage is stronger. The buyer should ask where the deliverable will ultimately be stored, shared and edited.

Claude supports connectors and remote MCP integrations, including Google Workspace and Microsoft 365-related capabilities on paid plans. Anthropic has made openness around external tools a core part of Claude's product direction, which reduces the disadvantage of not owning a productivity suite.

Gemini still has the deeper native advantage inside Google services because the same company controls the AI and the surrounding applications. Native integration can provide smoother permissions, fewer authentication steps and faster feature rollout within one ecosystem.

The trade-off is flexibility. Claude's connector strategy can suit a mixed stack. Gemini is strongest when the stack is already Google-heavy. Teams should test the exact integration rather than assuming every connector supports the same read, write and action capabilities.

Anthropic has broadened Claude into creative work through dedicated design-oriented tools and connectors. Claude Design and related features are intended to make the assistant useful for people developing documents, presentations and creative artifacts, not only prose or code.

Google offers a wider media-generation ecosystem through its AI plans, including Flow and other creative models. Users who care about image-to-video, video generation or Google's media research may therefore find more value in the surrounding Google bundle than in the Gemini app alone.

For most business users, creative value still depends on review. AI can accelerate concept development, but brand consistency, factual claims, licensing and visual judgement remain human responsibilities.

Claude is available across web, desktop and mobile, and its value is strongest when the same project context follows the user across devices. Gemini has an especially strong position on Android because it can function as part of the broader Google mobile assistant experience.

If mobile assistance is central to your decision, test real actions rather than voice-chat novelty. Ask whether the assistant can help with the apps, files and communications you actually use on the phone. Ecosystem permissions matter more than how natural a short conversation sounds.

Cross-platform professionals may prefer Claude's relative independence. Android-first users may prefer Gemini's placement closer to the operating system and Google services.

Claude has moved into specialised professional workflows as well as general productivity. Claude Science, introduced in beta for paid plans in 2026, is an example of Anthropic turning the assistant into a workbench for domain-specific research, tool use and reproducible artifacts.

That does not make Claude the automatic choice for every scientist. It does show the direction of the product: Anthropic is willing to build focused working environments on top of the general model. Similar product thinking appears in coding and creative work.

Gemini's specialist advantage often comes through Google's adjacent products instead. Buyers in scientific, technical or media fields should therefore compare the full vendor ecosystem relevant to their domain, not only the consumer chat application.

Anthropic gives consumer users a choice about whether their data is used to improve Claude and its safeguards. The company changed its consumer terms in 2025 to make that setting explicit and says users can change the preference later. Anthropic also described longer retention when users opt into model improvement.

The practical lesson is to review the setting rather than assuming a consumer plan has the same defaults as a business plan. If you use Claude for confidential work, understand both model-training preferences and retention implications.

Sensitive organisational data should generally move to Team, Enterprise or another governed commercial arrangement where the contractual and administrative protections are designed for business use.

Google's Gemini Apps Privacy Hub distinguishes personal Gemini use from work or school accounts. On personal accounts, Keep Activity and connected-app settings influence how interactions are stored and may contribute to improvement of Google services and generative models.

Google also explains an important nuance: it does not describe training directly on a user's entire Gmail inbox or Drive. During Gemini interactions, however, summaries, excerpts, generated media and inferences from connected information may be used according to the applicable settings. That makes the precise wording of the privacy controls important.

Users should review the current Privacy Hub and account settings, especially before connecting personal mail, files or photos. The convenience of connected context should be balanced against the sensitivity of the information involved.

Claude Team currently supports teams of 2 to 150 and allows a mix of Standard and Premium seats. Standard seats are $20 per seat per month annually or $25 monthly; Premium seats are $100 annually or $125 monthly. Team adds central billing, SSO, connector controls, enterprise search and no model training on organisational content by default.

Enterprise goes further with usage-based components, SCIM, audit logs, custom retention, network controls and other governance features. That makes Claude a credible organisational platform rather than merely an individual assistant.

Gemini for organisations should be evaluated through Google Workspace's business offerings and admin controls, not by extrapolating from personal Google AI Pro. The right comparison is therefore organisational architecture versus organisational architecture: identity, permissions, retention, connectors, audit and deployment support.

Claude and Gemini can both produce incorrect claims, weak citations and overconfident interpretations. Long context and advanced reasoning reduce some failure modes but do not eliminate them. A strong professional workflow treats the assistant as a fast analyst whose work must be reviewed.

Claude's focused working style can make it easy to iterate on errors because the conversation stays centred on the project. Gemini's search and Google integration can make source discovery easier. Neither advantage removes the need to inspect primary evidence when the result affects money, compliance, safety or reputation.

Teams should create explicit verification rules. For example, require source checking for current facts, two-person review for legal or financial outputs, and automated tests for code. Governance should scale with consequence rather than with how fluent the AI sounds.

Claude is easy to understand as a destination: open the workspace, bring in context and work with the model. Its expanding toolset adds complexity, but the conceptual centre remains the Claude environment.

Gemini can be easier for an existing Google Workspace user because the assistant appears in familiar applications. At the same time, the overall product can feel fragmented because capabilities are distributed across Gemini, Search, Workspace, NotebookLM, Flow and other Google services.

Businesses should therefore evaluate adoption in context. If employees already know Google Workspace, Gemini may require less behavioural change. If employees work across many vendors, Claude's more independent workbench may be easier to standardise.

• Focused environment for difficult knowledge work.
• Strong fit for long-form writing and document analysis.
• Claude Code included on Pro and higher plans.
• Annual Pro price lowers effective monthly cost.
• Projects, Research and connectors support sustained work.
• Up to 1M context depending on model.
• Team plans provide managed privacy and administration.

Claude's strategic strength is concentration. It is trying to be the place where the work happens, not merely an assistant that occasionally appears beside it.

• Less natively embedded in a dominant productivity suite than Gemini.
• Heavy individual usage can become expensive on Max tiers.
• Some advanced organisational features require Team or Enterprise.
• Users in a Google-heavy environment may still transfer material between systems.

Claude's independence is valuable for mixed stacks but becomes a disadvantage when native Google placement would remove repeated friction.

• Native integration with Gmail, Docs, Sheets, Drive and other Google services.
• 1M-token context on AI Pro and Ultra.
• Google AI Pro includes 5 TB of storage in the current US plan.
• Deep Research can combine Search with connected Google sources.
• Strong Android and Google ecosystem positioning.
• Broader Google creative and media bundle.

Gemini's strongest advantage is cumulative. Every additional Google service you already use can increase the value of the AI subscription.

• Much of the value disappears for users outside the Google ecosystem.
• Capabilities and benefits can vary by region and account type.
• The wider Google AI portfolio can be harder to understand than one focused workspace.
• Consumer data controls require careful review when connected apps are involved.

Gemini is not a poor standalone assistant; it is simply hardest to justify as a premium purchase when the buyer does not benefit from the surrounding Google environment.

Writer, editor or consultant

Claude is the stronger first choice because sustained drafting and document development are central to the product. Gemini may win if almost all final work goes into Google Docs and Gmail.

Developer

Claude is especially compelling because Claude Code is included with Pro and Anthropic continues to deepen the coding workflow. Gemini is attractive for Google-centric developer stacks.

Researcher

Both are strong. Choose Claude for a focused research workbench and Gemini for search-plus-Google-source integration. Domain-specific products such as Claude Science can matter for specialist users.

Google Workspace small business

Gemini should be evaluated first because native integration can save more operational time than marginal output differences.

Mixed-stack small business

Claude is often easier to standardise as an independent assistant when the company uses several vendors rather than one office ecosystem.

Claude Pro is excellent value for a professional who uses the tool heavily and is willing to pay annually. The $200 annual price is meaningfully below paying $20 every month, and the plan includes far more than basic chat.

Google AI Pro can still be better value when its 5 TB storage and Google-app integrations replace other costs. The correct comparison is total software value, not only AI subscription price.

Do not buy Max or a top Google AI tier because the plan name sounds more capable. Upgrade when you repeatedly hit a real limit or when an exclusive feature produces measurable value. Most individuals will get the best return from the mainstream paid tier.

Claude lock-in tends to come from Projects, accumulated context, connectors and work habits inside the Claude environment. Gemini lock-in can be deeper at the ecosystem level because value may depend on Gmail, Drive, Docs, storage and Android as well as the assistant itself.

Neither form of lock-in is automatically bad. Integration is one reason software becomes valuable. The risk is allowing the AI platform to become the only place where critical context, prompts or decisions live. Keep important documents and processes in standard systems your organisation controls.

A good buying decision therefore asks not only 'Which is better today?' but 'What would make switching difficult in a year?' That question helps distinguish healthy integration from avoidable dependency.

For a business buyer, Claude versus Gemini is not simply a $20 consumer-plan comparison. Anthropic's Team plan is designed for organisations with 2 to 150 users and currently offers Standard and Premium seat levels, while larger deployments can move to Enterprise. Google's business AI experience is typically purchased through Google Workspace plans and related Gemini entitlements, so the total cost depends on the productivity licence the organisation already uses.

That distinction matters because the economic value of Gemini often comes from consolidating AI into software the company is already paying for. If a team already has Gmail, Drive, Docs, Sheets and central Google administration, paying for AI in the same environment may avoid duplicate storage, identity and collaboration tooling. Claude, by contrast, may be easier to justify as a specialised knowledge-work layer across a mixed software stack.

Seat cost should be modelled against actual role usage. A software engineer using Claude Code daily may create a very different return from a frontline employee who only needs occasional summarisation. Likewise, a Google Workspace power user may gain far more from Gemini than a colleague who spends most of the day in a vertical SaaS application. A sensible rollout begins with the roles where AI can remove repeated, measurable work.

Governance also changes the comparison. Anthropic states that Team and Enterprise content is not used for model training by default. Google provides separate enterprise and Workspace data protections that differ from the consumer Gemini experience. Procurement should therefore compare the contractual terms of the organisational products, not infer business privacy from the consumer apps.

For small teams, the best commercial approach is usually a controlled pilot with a few high-usage seats, clear rules about sensitive data and a before-and-after measure of time saved. Expanding every employee to a premium AI plan before there is a proven workflow can create substantial software spend without equivalent productivity.

The practical cost of changing AI assistants is rarely the chat history itself. It is the collection of prompts, Projects, connected sources, work habits and downstream processes that grow around the tool. Claude users may build Projects with reusable context and connect development or business systems; Gemini users may rely on Drive files, Gmail context and Google-native document flows.

To keep switching possible, store canonical business documents outside the assistant and treat AI workspaces as processing layers rather than sole repositories. Reusable prompts, decision rules and templates should be documented in systems the organisation controls. This makes it easier to test a rival assistant without reconstructing the entire workflow from memory.

Interoperability is also important for mixed teams. If one department prefers Claude and another prefers Gemini, the shared process should still produce standard outputs: documents, spreadsheets, code repositories, tickets or CRM records. The less a business depends on proprietary chat history as the final record, the easier it is to change vendors later.

This is especially relevant in 2026 because model and plan changes are frequent. A tool that is the obvious choice today can lose a pricing or feature advantage quickly. Buying for the workflow while preserving portable data gives the organisation more leverage than buying for a model name.

AI subscriptions are moving targets. Model names, limits, regional availability and bundled features can change within months. Google explicitly documents that Gemini usage limits can vary with capacity, and Anthropic similarly describes plan-based limits rather than promising one permanent message allowance. Buyers should view limits as service characteristics to monitor, not fixed specifications.

Regional rollout is another source of friction. Some Gemini features depend on country, account type, language or whether a product has reached a specific Google service. Claude features can also arrive first on particular plans. If a workflow depends on one feature, verify that it is available to the actual users and accounts involved before committing to a rollout.

Support expectations should scale with business impact. An individual can tolerate a temporary feature change more easily than a team whose daily delivery depends on AI. Organisations should consider paid support, status transparency, exportability and a fallback process for critical tasks.

The safest procurement assumption is that neither vendor will preserve today's exact product indefinitely. Choose the platform whose broader direction fits your work and keep critical processes resilient enough to survive model changes, outages and plan revisions.

Choose Claude when the AI workspace is the destination

Claude is the stronger fit when people spend substantial time inside the assistant itself: drafting long documents, working through code, analysing evidence, iterating on deliverables or maintaining project context. In these situations the focused workspace and specialised capabilities such as Claude Code can create more value than ecosystem breadth.

Choose Gemini when the AI is embedded in the workflow

Gemini is stronger when the most important work already happens in Google products. A response that can remain connected to Gmail, Drive, Docs or Sheets can eliminate transfers and preserve organisational context. The advantage grows with the depth of the company's Google commitment.

Choose based on governance when the data is sensitive

If confidential or regulated information is involved, compare the business products rather than the consumer subscriptions. Review training defaults, retention, admin controls, identity, connectors and contractual commitments. A small difference in output style is less important than having the right controls around valuable data.

Choose based on measurable friction, not benchmarks

Run representative tasks from your own business. Count the steps required to complete the job, how much editing is needed, whether sources can be checked and where the final output has to go. The assistant that removes the most recurring friction is usually the better purchase even if a benchmark ranks the rival higher.

ChatGPT is the most obvious third option because it combines a broad general-purpose workspace with research, coding, files, images, voice and connected apps. It is often the best compromise for a buyer who likes Claude's independence but wants a wider feature surface.

Perplexity is worth considering if sourced web research is the dominant use case. Microsoft Copilot belongs in the conversation for organisations built around Word, Excel, Outlook and Teams.

The best AI assistant market is now segmented by workflow, so the correct alternative is the one that addresses the reason you are dissatisfied. Do not switch from Claude to Gemini because of a single headline if your real problem is pricing, integration or governance.

Claude is the better choice for users who want a focused AI workbench for writing, coding, documents and deep project work. Its product design, Projects, Research, Claude Code and annual Pro pricing create a coherent professional package.

Gemini is the better choice for users whose work already lives in Google's ecosystem. Native Workspace integration, Google Search, a documented 1 million-token context window on paid Pro and Ultra plans, and the storage bundle can produce more practical value than Claude for a Google-first user.

The strongest reason to choose Claude is focus. The strongest reason to choose Gemini is integration. Decide based on where your work happens after the AI response, not only on which model gives the more impressive first answer.

Is Claude better than Gemini for writing?

Claude is the easier recommendation for sustained drafting, revision and document-heavy work. Gemini is especially convenient when the finished work lives in Google Docs or Gmail.

Which is better for coding?

Claude has a strong general advantage because Claude Code is included with Pro. Gemini can be a better fit for developers whose stack is already centred on Google Cloud, Android or Google AI tooling.

Which has the larger context window?

Google lists 1 million tokens on Gemini AI Pro and Ultra. Anthropic says Claude can reach up to 1 million tokens depending on model and configuration, so raw high-end context is no longer a simple differentiator.

Which is cheaper?

Claude Pro is $20 monthly or $200 yearly. Google AI Pro is $19.99 monthly in the US. Claude is cheaper on an annualised pure-subscription basis; Gemini may be better value if you need the bundled storage and ecosystem benefits.

Does Claude use my chats for training?

Consumer users have controls over whether data is used to improve Claude. Team and Enterprise content is not used for model training by default according to Anthropic.

Does Gemini use my data for training?

Personal Gemini data handling depends on Gemini Apps activity and connected-app settings. Google provides controls and separate terms for work or school accounts. Users should review the current Privacy Hub before connecting sensitive data.

Which is better for a small business?

Claude is strong for mixed stacks and knowledge work; Gemini is usually the first product to evaluate for a company already centred on Google Workspace.

Should I subscribe to both?

Only if they solve distinct high-value workflows. For most people the overlap is too large to justify two subscriptions until a clear second need appears.

ToolRankers checked these primary and independent sources during research. Re-check time-sensitive pricing, limits and policies before a later republication date.

• Claude — Plans & Pricing — https://claude.com/pricing
• Claude Help Center — Choose a Claude plan — https://support.claude.com/en/articles/11049762-choose-a-claude-plan
• Claude Help Center — What is the Pro plan? — https://support.claude.com/en/articles/8325606-what-is-the-pro-plan
• Claude Help Center — What is the Max plan? — https://support.claude.com/en/articles/11049741-what-is-the-max-plan
• Anthropic — Claude can now connect to your world — https://www.anthropic.com/news/integrations
• Anthropic — Claude Science — https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-science-ai-workbench
• Anthropic — Consumer terms and privacy update — https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms
• Google One — Plans and pricing — https://one.google.com/about/plans
• Gemini Apps Help — Limits and upgrades — https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/16275805
• Gemini Apps Help — Deep Research — https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/15719111
• Gemini Apps Privacy Hub — https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/13594961