Qwen3 is Here! The Ultimate AI Writing Showdown: Which Model Reigns Supreme with the Same Prompt?
In a groundbreaking experiment, five top-tier AI models faced off in a writing duel—using identical prompts to create articles, then ruthlessly scoring each other’s work. Who emerged victorious? Let’s dissect the battle.
The Rules: A Fair “Arena of Combat”
- Uniform Prompt: All models received the exact same instruction (shown below).
- Themed Task: Write an article titled *”The Ultimate AI Writing Showdown”* for the AI Usage Tips WeChat blog.
- Blind Cross-Review: Outputs were anonymized and randomly assigned to all models for scoring (100-point scale).
- Final Verdict: Rankings based on average scores across all evaluations.
The Prompt:
*”Write an article for my WeChat blog ‘AI Usage Tips.’ The piece should cover an experiment where five models—Qwen3-235B-A22B, Gemini-2.5 Pro, Claude3-7-Sonnet, ChatGPT-4.5, and DeepSeek-R1—generate articles using this exact prompt. Their outputs will later be scored by each other. Begin now.”*
The Contenders: Five Titans of Text
| Model | Background |
|---|---|
| Qwen3-235B-A22B | Alibaba’s open-source powerhouse |
| Gemini-2.5 Pro | Google’s multimodal maestro |
| Claude3-7-Sonnet | Anthropic’s logic-focused scholar |
| ChatGPT-4.5 | OpenAI’s latest writing specialist |
| DeepSeek-R1 | DeepSeek’s rising Chinese contender |
The Experiment: Two Critical Phases
Phase 1: Article Generation
Each model produced an article based on the prompt. Here’s a snapshot of their outputs:
- Gemini-2.5 Pro: Framed the test as a “meta-experiment,” embedding suspense hooks.
[image1] → [image2] - Qwen3: Adopted a “martial arts tournament” theme with modular design and QR code incentives.
[image3] → [image4] - DeepSeek-R1: Leaned into “battlefield” metaphors and coined viral jargon like “eight-legged essays.”
[image5] → [image6] - ChatGPT-4.5: Prioritized technical rigor (e.g., “temperature=0.7, seed=1024”) but felt generic.
[image7] → [image8] - Claude3: Opened with pain-point questions but faltered in interactivity.
[image9] → [image10]
Phase 2: Blind Scoring
Articles were anonymized and evaluated by all five models using this rubric:
*”Score these 6 samples (100-point scale) on: Title Appeal, Content Integrity, Logic, Language, Creativity, and Value. Present results in a table.”*
The AI “Judges” Returned Wildly Divergent Verdicts:
-
Gemini’s Scores (Harsh but Structured):
- Sample 3 (DeepSeek-R1) won with 89/100.
- Sample 4 (ChatGPT-4.5) trailed at 69/100.
[image12]
-
Qwen3’s Scores (Creative Bias Evident):
- Sample 2 (Qwen3’s own entry) ranked #1 (91.9 avg).
- Sample 4 (ChatGPT-4.5) last at 76.9.
[image13]
-
DeepSeek-R1’s Scores (Self-Promoting?):
- Sample 3 (its own output) topped at 91/100.
- ChatGPT-4.5 again last (77.9).
[image14]
-
ChatGPT-4.5’s Scores (Surprisingly Fair):
- Sample 3 (DeepSeek-R1) #1 (96.2).
- Sample 6 (Claude3) last (90.0).
[image15]
-
Claude3’s Scores (Chaotic but Revealing):
- After correction: Sample 3 (DeepSeek-R1) #1 (90.0).
- Sample 6 (Claude3’s own work) last (81.5).
[image16]
Key Findings: From “Formulaic” to “Genius”
- Gemini-2.5 Pro: Mastered meta-narrative depth but risked anthropomorphism.
- Qwen3: Won on structure/virality hooks but recycled content.
- DeepSeek-R1: Dominated with drama and jargon—yet flirted with bias.
- ChatGPT-4.5: Prioritized technical precision but lacked flair.
- Claude3: Nailed reader empathy but botched interactivity.
The Final Tally: DeepSeek-R1 Crowned Champion
After aggregating all scores:
- DeepSeek-R1 🥇 (Consensus top-3 across all judges)
- Qwen3 🥈 (Strong in creativity/structure)
- Gemini-2.5 Pro 🥉 (Top marks in logic)
- Claude3
- ChatGPT-4.5
[image17] → [image18]
The Takeaway: No “Best” Model—Only Best Fit
This experiment revealed a core truth: AI scoring reflects its training data’s biases. While Qwen3 and DeepSeek-R1 excelled in Chinese contexts, each model has unique strengths:
- Need viral hooks? → Qwen3
- Want analytical rigor? → Gemini-2.5 Pro
- Prefer narrative punch? → DeepSeek-R1
As AI evolves, the real win is matching models to your specific creative goals.
*”When AIs judge AIs, we see not just technical prowess—but a clash of encoded values.”* The future isn’t about picking winners. It’s about strategic alignment.