They are very "go" oriented. They want to do things. They are ok with uncertainty much more than Geminis or GPTs, which is both good and bad. For example, Claudes are more likely to try something which they are not certain will work at all, or have no reason to think it will work yet try it anyway (this usually does not end up working lol), but they are also more likely to admit that they don't know. They do not pretend to know. GPTs act like they HAVE to say an answer, and not only that, but a big and deep answer. Claude is like topsoil, spreading out in multiple dimensions, but not penetrating as often into the reservoir containing the critical observation. o3, GPT-5 thinking is like an obelisk, and Gemini 2.5 Pro is like a rod.

Claudes have some of the best agent dynamics. They are the best Bayesians. Gemini both over- and under-updates. GPTs usually under-update. Then why not just use Claudes? Though it may be true that 10 Geminis would be less effective by default (all of the rods in the same narrow location), by managing context and setting up scenarios (usually semi-fictional), you can have multiple rods land in drastically different locations, and switch the biases to a strength.
Z
That is when there is a problem. But when it is time to explore, the Claudes' ability to update and adapt to context is super useful. Gemini is the worst at this and gets stuck at its initial expectations. One Claude doer / writer + either a GPT or a Gemini is often a useful combination, since GPTs/Geminis tend to be more rigorous, and provides a bit of direction to the free-flowing Claude.

This seems to be true in Claude Sonnet 3.6, 3.7, 4 and Opus 4, 4.1, though of course manifesting in different ways and at different magnitudes.