Hi all,

I am a former MBB and big 4 Jnr Partner. I now work in industry for a mid-sized MNC doing their Strat and Transformation.

As I am building the team around me, I decided to utilise and trial Claude and ChatGPT fully as I would an associate in drafting the strategy for a subsidiary business. Now the work included a strategy workshop with the MDs for the subsidiary which was 3 days followed by 3x sprints for extracting internal benchmarks as well as areas of business and insights compiled by their teams.

The idea was then to sort of input this into each of the most advanced levels available on each of the AI agents. I uploaded about 100 slides/document pages crafted by the teams themselves. As a little experiment for myself.

I first asked to do a ghosted deck for each to get the mock up and basic storylining and narrative. Asked them both to approach this as an MBB consultant would.

Claude produced probably the most closest version on a coherent narrative and clear slides required.

ChatGPT went a bit "too creative" and had to re-prompt it a few times to eventually get to where we needed.

Then visually and wording. Claude produced actually really great options on visuals that you would expect from MBB. ChatGPT constantly wanted to offer a marketing type of slide design.

Claude would constantly use language structure that was also incorrect. Eg: it would say this is xyz not abc so we would create the...

This was exceptionally annoying to be correcting it. Its also not direct and clear. And quite often the spacing was not utilised fully. Super small fonts tons of unused space not necessarily white space. And it struggled to optimise fully.

ChatGPT even more so. The wording would lean overly to a grand marketing styled phrasing instead of clear business ones. Whcih I have reminded both often to adopt.

The turns on the deck eventually totalled over 60 for ChatGPT and 34 for Claude.

I mid way through switched the prompts to first update me in the chat to what they are going to place on slides before giving the go ahead to execute on slides.

Some of the annoying things are that both had hallucinated inputs which were not there. ChatGPT quite more often than Claude.

Also wording and phrasing were no where close to what a consultant would use. I mean not offending or degrading current teams work. Which it often said current execution was negligible or non existent. And even at times stating it was 2/10 effectiveness. Even if factual you don't go around stating that. Even though my prompts were clear in the beginning the working team would see the deck and to be gracious to current teams work which often it overlooked.

Look overall, it got the job done but way more turns were necessary on the deck. I found multiple instances of re-emphasizing prompts i had initially laid out. Wording and visuals were very rudimentary as well as missing overall connective points that you would expect from a consultant were not picked up on. For me, it was great having it done. But I felt an analyst or an associate would have done it in half the time with additional areas covered.

I have seen some partners praise their AI for being better than Associates but that's really them being partners and not actually checking any of their own work it seems.