Julius AI vs ChatGPT: I Found the Clear Winner

Julius AI vs. ChatGPT at a glance

Julius AI overview

Available on web, Android and iOS.

What I like about Julius AI

What I don’t like about Julius AI

Julius AI is an AI-powered data analyst and an AI research assistant that lets you have natural conversations with your files—whether they’re spreadsheets, images, PDFs, or Google Sheets.

What makes Julius special is its deep training in Python and R.

But here’s the key thing: you don’t need to know either language to use it. Julius handles all the technical heavy lifting while you focus on getting insights from your data.

It shines in data analysis and visualization. Tell Julius what you want to see, and it creates everything from basic charts to complex interactive visualizations.

Even better, you can tweak these visualizations exactly how you want them.

Need the chart in a specific format?

Just ask for a download link.

One feature I particularly like is their workflow system. Instead of staring at a blank screen wondering where to start, you can use their pre-built templates.

These workflows guide you step-by-step through common analysis tasks. You’re not locked into their templates, either—you can create your own workflows and share them with the Julius AI community.

But here’s where Julius AI separates itself from tools like ChatGPT:

It’s built on multiple powerful language models. Their default setup uses GPT-4 and Claude 3, but you can also access GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and OpenAI’s o3-mini.

They’ve taken this flexibility even further with their Models Lab feature.

If you want to use Julius AI purely for text generation, you can directly access top models from OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, Google, and Cohere—all in one place.

Further reading: I Tested Julius AI: Here’s What I Really Think About It

ChatGPT overview

Available on web, Android, iOS, Windows and Mac.

What I like about ChatGPT

What I don’t like about ChatGPT

ChatGPT is a general-purpose AI assistant that understands what you write and responds with remarkably human-like text.

I’ve spent countless hours with ChatGPT. It’s good at many things, but not specialized in any particular domain.

This matters when we talk about data analysis.

ChatGPT knows about data concepts—it can explain regression analysis or tell you how to create a pivot table. But there’s a difference between knowing about something and being built specifically to do it.

When I upload a spreadsheet to ChatGPT, it tries its best.

Sometimes that’s enough.

It can generate basic charts and straightforward analysis. However, I’ve found its capabilities hit walls quickly with complex data tasks.

The interface makes a difference too. ChatGPT presents everything through conversation. If you want to adjust a visualization, you’re describing the changes rather than directly manipulating them.

What ChatGPT does phenomenally well is translate your vague intentions into specific questions.

“Make this data look nice” becomes “Do you want a line chart showing trends over time, or would a comparison between categories be more helpful?”

You get access to different models depending on your subscription. GPT-4o is impressively capable, while GPT-3.5 handles simpler tasks for free users.

ChatGPT’s greatest strength is its flexibility. You can pivot from data analysis to writing a business plan to debugging code—all in the same conversation.

Unlike Julius AI, ChatGPT wasn’t built specifically for data. But its broad capabilities make it useful in surprisingly many situations, even ones involving spreadsheets.

Both are surprisingly easy to use

Julius AI and ChatGPT share a crucial trait: beginners can figure them out fast.

I’ve noticed both use plenty of whitespace. Whitespace isn’t just aesthetic. It helps you find what you need without feeling overwhelmed.

Julius AI puts more on the screen than ChatGPT does.

Their home screen has three distinct zones.

On the left, you’ll find your conversation history, resources like workflows and documentation, their Models lab, and settings.

The middle holds your chat interface and those pre-built templates they call workflows.

The right sidebar contains their workspace—essentially a notepad where Julius plans responses before answering you.

ChatGPT takes a different approach. It’s deliberately minimal.

You get a clean chat box in the center with almost nothing to distract you. The left sidebar shows your recent conversations and those custom GPTs you might have created or used.

You’d think Julius’s busier interface would be harder to learn, but that wasn’t my experience. The layout makes intuitive sense once you start using it.

The real test of interface design isn’t how it looks, but how quickly you can do what you came for.

Both pass this test.

You’ll be having productive conversations within minutes of signing up.

Julius AI specializes in data analysis and visualization

Tool builders tend to follow two paths:

They either build something general that does many things adequately, or something focused that does one thing exceptionally well.

Julius AI took the second path.

If your job involves analyzing data, you should probably be using Julius AI instead of ChatGPT.

This isn’t an exaggeration. For data work, it’s simply better.

I’ll explain why.

First, Julius AI is trained in both Python and R, while ChatGPT primarily uses Python for data tasks.

You can choose which language Julius uses for each analysis.

Sometimes R is better for statistical work, sometimes Python is better for manipulation. Having both is like having two specialists instead of one generalist.

Then there’s the file size issue. This is where ChatGPT hits hard limits.

ChatGPT caps uploads at 512 MB per file. For spreadsheets, it’s effectively around 50 MB. Images stop at 20 MB each (source).

Julius AI can handle data files up to 32 GB.

This isn’t a small difference. It’s the difference between analyzing a sample of your data and analyzing all of it.

They accomplish this with what they call “high RAM containers.” You can choose:

Each thread runs in its own container, and the timer resets after your last interaction.

Julius also thought about the presentation layer. They recently added “Theme Settings” for visualizations.

This might sound trivial until you need to create charts that match your company’s branding. Then it becomes essential.

You can use their pre-built themes or create your own from scratch.

The actual data handling process is straightforward.

Upload your file, and it becomes visible in the interface. With spreadsheets, you see the content immediately.

You can even select specific parts of a spreadsheet if you only want answers from a subset of data.

One downside: files automatically delete after an hour of inactivity. This is good for security but potentially inconvenient for ongoing work. The paid plans extend/removes this limit.

But the visualization capabilities are where Julius AI separates itself. I counted over 40 different chart types it can create, from basic bar charts to 3D network graphs.

Need an interactive visualization? Ask for one.

Want to animate your charts? Julius AI will create downloadable GIFs.

I tested both tools with the same dataset – traffic stats from my website categorized by country.

ChatGPT did a decent job analyzing the data and provided a basic visualization, but I couldn’t easily edit the graph to match what I wanted.

Within seconds, it reasoned.

It then quickly started analyzing the uploaded file with Python Pandas.

Here’s what I got:

Julius AI gave me precisely what I asked for:

The best part?

Let’s say you are certain about the specific type of visualization you want to create.

In that case, just upload your spreadsheet and toggle from Table to Plots and instantly create the visualization you want.

One can technically do the job; the other was built specifically for it.

If your primary task is data analysis and visualization, Julius AI is the obvious choice.

ChatGPT excels at text-to-text generation tasks

ChatGPT turns thoughts into words better than almost anything else I’ve seen, besides Claude.

This is its natural habitat.

While Julius AI can analyze data, ChatGPT transforms language itself.

What separates ChatGPT from other text generators is its adaptability. Tell it the first draft sounds too formal, and it’ll make it casual. Say you need more technical detail, and it adds it.

It’s like having a writing partner who instantly gets what you mean.

Most writing tools are single-purpose. A grammar checker fixes mistakes. A thesaurus suggests alternatives. ChatGPT does these things while also generating complete drafts.

What makes ChatGPT particularly useful is its memory.

Start writing a marketing report, and it remembers your brand voice throughout. Ask it to continue a story, and it maintains the characters and plot.

It isn’t perfect. It sometimes invents facts or misunderstands subtle requests. But even its mistakes are useful starting points.

Julius AI also offers text generation through its Models Lab. You can chat with it like a general LLM chatbot.

The best part?

While ChatGPT obviously uses its own (OpenAI) models, Julius AI gives you access to all the top third-party models.

As of writing this, you can choose from Claude Sonnet, Claude Haiku, GPT o1-mini, GPT o1, GPT 4, GPT 4-o, GPT 4-o-mini, Llama 3, Command R, and Command R+.

But having access to many models isn’t the same as having them well-integrated.

If your primary need is turning prompts into polished text, ChatGPT is the better choice. Its specialized focus on this task gives it an edge that Julius’s collection of models can’t match.

Both allow for basic collaboration

Collaboration isn’t just a checkbox feature. It’s how most valuable work happens now.

Both Julius AI and ChatGPT offer collaboration options, but they work differently in practice.

Julius lets you share threads via links.

This seems simple until you realize what it enables: you can create analysis workflows that colleagues can view and learn from.

There’s something powerful about watching someone else’s thought process unfold.

ChatGPT Team takes a different approach. They’ve built a workspace model with admin controls and team management features.

ChatGPT’s collaboration features extend beyond just sharing. They let teams create custom GPTs for specific departments or use cases.

Like Julius, ChatGPT also easily allows you to share your chats.

Workflows by Julius vs. Custom GPTs by ChatGPT

Customization reveals what a tool really values.

Julius Workflows are predefined templates for data analysis tasks. You tell the AI what you want to analyze, and it follows these step-by-step guides to get you there.

ChatGPT’s Custom GPTs are personalized versions of the chatbot focused on specific purposes. You’re creating a specialized assistant rather than a process.

When I first tried Julius Workflows, I noticed they’re organized around verbs: analyze, visualize, predict. They’re about doing things with data.

GPTs are organized around nouns: the board game helper, the math teacher, and the sticker designer. They’re about becoming something.

Neither approach is inherently better. But they reveal different philosophies.

Julius wants to codify data science processes. Their workflows feel like standard operating procedures an experienced analyst might create.

You can design your own workflows in Julius. This is surprisingly powerful. It’s like programming without coding—you’re telling the AI the exact steps to follow with your data.

ChatGPT’s GPTs work differently. You’re not defining processes but personalities. You’re saying “act like this kind of expert” rather than “follow these specific steps.”

I’ve found that when I’m deep in data work, Julius’ approach matches how I think. I don’t want an AI pretending to be a data scientist.

I want one that knows the exact sequence of steps needed to transform my confusing spreadsheet into actionable insights.

But ChatGPT’s approach makes more sense for general tasks. I don’t need a workflow to write a blog post. I need a collaborator who understands what good writing looks like.

Price difference

Julius sells three plans that scale with how serious you are about data.

The Lite plan costs $20/month. You get 250 messages, access to core AI models, and basic settings. It’s their entry ticket.

For $45/month, the Standard plan removes the message cap completely. You also get those 32 GB RAM containers I mentioned earlier, longer 3-hour timeouts, and better message retention. This is what most serious users need.

Teams pay $50/month per person. This adds collaboration features, permanent storage, and admin controls. You’re buying a shared workspace, not just an AI tool.

There is a limited free plan.

I like that Julius offers a 50% academic discount. If you’re a student or teacher, email them and half your bill disappears.

Additionally, you can use my exclusive discount code DHRUVIR for 10% off any plan.

ChatGPT structures pricing differently.

The free tier costs nothing. You get GPT-4o mini, standard voice mode, and web search.

For $20/month, Plus removes most limitations on file uploads, analysis, and image generation. You gain access to stronger reasoning models and voice options. This is where most people land.

The Pro plan jumps to $200/month. It’s basically unlimited everything: all reasoning models, voice features, GPT-4o access, and various research previews. They’re targeting power users who extract massive value.

For businesses, the Team plan costs $25/month per user (billed annually, a minimum of two members). It adds admin controls, encryption, and guarantees your data won’t train their models.

Tools cost what they’re worth to specific people, not what they cost to make.

Julius charges more than ChatGPT Plus because data specialists extract more value from it.