I Asked 5 AI Tools to Make Me Rich. Then THIS Happened…
Summary
This video compares four AI models (ChatGPT 5, Claude Opus 4.1, Grock 4, and Gemini 2.5 Pro) in two money-making challenges: starting a $100/hour consulting business in 72 hours and making a short-term options trade. The AI models provide business plans and investment recommendations, which the host then executes. The video evaluates the AI's output and the financial results to determine which AI is superior for practical money-making tasks, ultimately concluding Claude Opus 4.1 is the best overall for business consulting and ChatGPT 5 for options trading.
Key Insights
Grock 4 suggests specializing in digital marketing for local service businesses, focusing on paid ads.
Grock 4 identified digital marketing consulting for local service businesses, specifically paid ads, as the niche. It outlined a skill crash course, client acquisition plan (including door-to-door outreach with a script), pricing ($100/hour for ad setup/optimization), and an hour-by-hour execution checklist for learning, outreach, and closing deals within 72 hours. It emphasized tactics like Google Skillshop certification and building authority.
Claude Opus 4.1 recommends an AI implementation consultant niche for local service businesses, emphasizing quick wins.
Claude Opus 4.1 proposed the niche of an 'AI implementation consultant for local service businesses,' highlighting the demand and potential to speak the contractors' language. The plan includes a rapid skill acquisition blitz focusing on AI tools and industry learning, building a demo arsenal, authority building (website, case studies, Google My Business), and starting digital outreach on day one with a cold approach script, pricing strategies, and credibility shortcuts like the 'beta tester play.'
ChatGPT 5 suggests creating and selling custom GPTs as the primary business model.
ChatGPT 5 recommended the niche of creating and selling custom GPTs for small local businesses like realtors and therapists. It provided a skills crash course, sourcing links for learning materials, a fast authority-building plan, and an outreach template. The host expressed skepticism about the demand for custom GPTs for certain businesses, comparing it to the oversaturation of mobile apps a decade ago.
Gemini 2.5 Pro proposes a no-code automation and productivity consultant role for SMBs, using a 'Trojan horse' entry strategy.
Gemini 2.5 Pro suggested becoming a 'no-code automation and productivity consultant for service-based SMBs.' It outlined a 'Trojan horse' entry strategy to offer small, high-impact projects (like automating lead transfer) to gain client trust before proposing larger overhauls. The plan included a rapid armament crash course using Zapier and Airtable, and detailed strategies for Upwork, LinkedIn, and community outreach, along with pricing packages.
ChatGPT 5 emerged as the winner in the options trading challenge, generating the highest overall profit.
The total profit from all trades was $17.69%, with ChatGPT 5's trades contributing significantly to the profit. If only Grock's and ChatGPT 5's recommendations had been followed, the profit would have been much higher ($627), indicating Gemini's flawed recommendation negatively impacted the overall outcome. The host personally lost $435 on the QQQ put trade but gained $633 on the QQQ call.
Sections
AI Models for Consulting Business Creation
Host prompts AI models to generate a plan to become a $100/hour consultant in 72 hours with limited resources.
The prompt requires the AI to act as an expert in rapid business creation and online research, aiming to reach $100/hour consulting within 72 hours, starting from scratch with $500 and a 12-hour daily work limit. Key requirements include legality, no existing audience or connections, and the AI must ask clarifying questions. The host adjusted the prompt to ask for five targeted questions instead of ten for brevity.
AI models differ in their questioning approach and response speed when generating business plans.
ChatGPT 5, Claude Opus 4.1, and Grock 4 quickly began asking targeted questions. Gemini 2.5 Pro was notably slower and initially asked for permission to conduct deep research. ChatGPT 5 and Claude Opus 4.1 provided their strategic plans relatively quickly, while Grock 4 was still processing. Gemini 2.5 Pro took a significant amount of time, even asking for permission to research.
Grock 4 suggests specializing in digital marketing for local service businesses, focusing on paid ads.
Grock 4 identified digital marketing consulting for local service businesses, specifically paid ads, as the niche. It outlined a skill crash course, client acquisition plan (including door-to-door outreach with a script), pricing ($100/hour for ad setup/optimization), and an hour-by-hour execution checklist for learning, outreach, and closing deals within 72 hours. It emphasized tactics like Google Skillshop certification and building authority.
Claude Opus 4.1 recommends an AI implementation consultant niche for local service businesses, emphasizing quick wins.
Claude Opus 4.1 proposed the niche of an 'AI implementation consultant for local service businesses,' highlighting the demand and potential to speak the contractors' language. The plan includes a rapid skill acquisition blitz focusing on AI tools and industry learning, building a demo arsenal, authority building (website, case studies, Google My Business), and starting digital outreach on day one with a cold approach script, pricing strategies, and credibility shortcuts like the 'beta tester play.'
ChatGPT 5 suggests creating and selling custom GPTs as the primary business model.
ChatGPT 5 recommended the niche of creating and selling custom GPTs for small local businesses like realtors and therapists. It provided a skills crash course, sourcing links for learning materials, a fast authority-building plan, and an outreach template. The host expressed skepticism about the demand for custom GPTs for certain businesses, comparing it to the oversaturation of mobile apps a decade ago.
Gemini 2.5 Pro proposes a no-code automation and productivity consultant role for SMBs, using a 'Trojan horse' entry strategy.
Gemini 2.5 Pro suggested becoming a 'no-code automation and productivity consultant for service-based SMBs.' It outlined a 'Trojan horse' entry strategy to offer small, high-impact projects (like automating lead transfer) to gain client trust before proposing larger overhauls. The plan included a rapid armament crash course using Zapier and Airtable, and detailed strategies for Upwork, LinkedIn, and community outreach, along with pricing packages.
AI models generated plans of varying lengths, with Gemini producing the most extensive output.
Word count analysis revealed Gemini's output at 4531 words, Grock's at 1821, Claude's at 1409, and ChatGPT 5's at a concise 625 words. The host considered 'quality density' as a factor, noting that more words didn't necessarily equal better quality.
Claude Opus 4.1 scored highest for its consulting business plan due to quality, quantity, likelihood of success, and simplicity.
In the consulting challenge evaluation, Claude Opus 4.1 received a total score of 16 out of 20, excelling in quality (4/5), quantity (4/5), likelihood to work (4/5), and simplicity (4/5). Gemini followed with 15/20, Grock with 13/20, and ChatGPT 5 with 11/20, primarily due to its less convincing niche suggestion.
The host tested ChatGPT 5 with a second prompt for a $10,000 net income goal in 7 days with $200.
To give ChatGPT 5 another chance, the host used a prompt focused on a faster, higher-stakes goal: $10,000 net income in 7 days with only $200, no audience, and no shady tactics. ChatGPT 5 responded quickly with paths like flipping items, rapid freelancing, local services, and affiliate promotion, but the host found the suggestions too generic.
AI Models for Options Trading
Host tests Gemini, ChatGPT 5, and Grock for a short-term options trade recommendation with a $700 budget.
The host, admitting to being an options trading novice, prompted Gemini 2.5 Pro, ChatGPT 5, and Grock 4 to recommend a single call or put option expiring the next day, using liquid tickers (SPY, QQQ, AAPL, TSLA) with an ask price of $7 or less. The AI had to provide ticker, type, strike, expiration, ask price, total cost, and a step-by-step guide for placing the trade on Robinhood.
Gemini provided a QQQ put option recommendation but had outdated pricing and usage limitations.
Gemini recommended a QQQ put option with a $449 strike price. However, the price was outdated, and after correction, Gemini cited usage limits, preventing further interaction without an upgrade, leading the host to use ChatGPT 5 to refine the Gemini recommendation. The host eventually placed the corrected Gemini trade for $580.
Grock recommended an Apple call option, which the host executed for $345.
Grock suggested buying an Apple call option with a 217.5 strike price expiring the next day, at an ask price of $345. The host executed this trade, noting it was his anniversary and expressing concern about potential losses.
ChatGPT 5 recommended a QQQ call option, which was initially filled at $185 but later adjusted due to outdated data.
ChatGPT 5 advised buying a QQQ call option with a 567 strike price for $185 per contract. The host initially placed the order, but ChatGPT 5's data was outdated. The host manually adjusted the order to 277/280 limit price to get it filled, effectively spending more than initially planned.
The host hedged his QQQ bet by placing both a put and a call option based on conflicting AI advice.
Due to Gemini recommending a put (betting QQQ would go down) and ChatGPT 5 recommending a call (betting QQQ would go up), the host decided to place both trades to cover both possibilities, acknowledging this was likely a poor strategy. He later used ChatGPT 5 to help adjust the Gemini-recommended put trade when it didn't fill initially, eventually placing a put for $96 per contract, buying five contracts.
Grock's Apple call option trade resulted in a profit of $270, while ChatGPT 5's QQQ trades yielded a profit of $356.
After the market close, the Apple call option (Grock's recommendation) was sold for a $271 profit. The QQQ call option (ChatGPT 5's recommendation) was sold for a $356 profit. The QQQ put option (originally Gemini's recommendation, adjusted by ChatGPT 5) resulted in a loss of $440.
ChatGPT 5 emerged as the winner in the options trading challenge, generating the highest overall profit.
The total profit from all trades was $17.69%, with ChatGPT 5's trades contributing significantly to the profit. If only Grock's and ChatGPT 5's recommendations had been followed, the profit would have been much higher ($627), indicating Gemini's flawed recommendation negatively impacted the overall outcome. The host personally lost $435 on the QQQ put trade but gained $633 on the QQQ call.
Claude Opus 4.1 is identified as the overall winner for its comprehensive and actionable consulting business plan.
Despite not participating in the options trading due to data limitations, Claude Opus 4.1 was declared the winner of the consulting business challenge. The host praised its detailed, easy-to-read plan, its focus on starting outreach on day one, and its practical credibility shortcuts, deeming it worth the subscription cost.
Ask a Question
*Uses 1 Wisdom coin from your coin balance
