Choose Copilot or ChatGPT for your business by looking at the work it needs to support. Copilot deserves a trial if employees spend much of their time in Microsoft 365; ChatGPT is a candidate for a workspace where they research information, create content and carry out tasks. Compare business subscriptions, access to information and results from real assignments. Our guide to AI automation for SMEs puts the decision in its business context. Read what an AI consultant does if you’re still deciding where to start.
What’s the difference between Copilot and ChatGPT for businesses?
Much of the difference lies in the working environment and configuration you buy. Microsoft’s product overview distinguishes Copilot experiences by data access, features and licensing. The paid Microsoft 365 environment can bring work context and functions into familiar office apps. Check exactly which version a proposal includes.
ChatGPT supports conversations, file analysis and content creation. Work can also carry out tasks using available tools and connected apps. Access depends on factors including your plan, rollout and workspace settings. Comparing ChatGPT as just an isolated text box without business connections is therefore too narrow.
This comparison concerns Copilot for business knowledge work and ChatGPT for organisations. GitHub Copilot for programming and personal consumer subscriptions belong in different comparisons. Put the exact product version, user group and intended task at the top of each proposal.
Which option should your team investigate first?
Start where work gets held up. Does an account manager need to find information across existing work documents? Or does someone need to compare a separate collection of files and turn it into a report? Either task may fit several tools on paper. The setup determines how much preparation and checking remains.
| Your situation | What to investigate in a trial |
|---|---|
| Work centres on Microsoft 365 | Whether Copilot supports the required context and actions in your apps |
| You use varied files and sources | Whether ChatGPT and approved connections can process them usefully |
| You need a draft or analysis | Which tool produces correct content with manageable revisions |
| A process must update records | Which actions are available and where approval is required |
| You want one company standard | Whether the choice works for roles with different tasks and permissions |
This is a starting point for investigation, not a product ranking. One employee may need help with writing while another department mainly searches work files. You don’t have to turn those needs into a single overall winner. You do need to explain why an additional subscription is justified.
What do business subscriptions cost?
Prices checked on 24 September 2026. The Dutch Microsoft pricing page lists Copilot Business at a regular €18.20 per user per month on annual billing, excluding VAT. An eligible Microsoft 365 base subscription is required separately; this version supports up to 300 users. Temporary offers may reduce the price.
| Subscription | Published monthly price per user | Condition |
|---|---|---|
| Copilot Business | €18.20 regular price | Annual billing; excludes VAT and base subscription |
| ChatGPT Business | $20 | Annual billing; minimum two users |
| ChatGPT Business | $25 | Monthly billing; minimum two users |
The ChatGPT figures come from the official pricing guide and are shown in dollars. Check your own quote and applicable taxes before converting them into a local budget. Additional usage may incur separate charges. The Copilot example uses Dutch pricing, so UK buyers should request their local terms.
Look beyond subscriptions. Someone has to set up accounts and sources, employees need to learn the workflow, and outputs need checking. Record which existing subscriptions you already pay for and which costs this decision actually adds. A difference in monthly price tells you little if one route requires much more correction time.
Which information can the tools access?
List the sources your assignment requires. For each one, record who has access and whether the information is current. A folder of old quotations may be technically accessible while still being a poor basis for a new proposal.
Microsoft’s Copilot Chat guidance explains that Chat can use organisational content in certain circumstances, such as supplied files or agents. The simple split of “free only sees the internet, paid sees every company record” is inaccurate. Access depends on the feature, licence and permissions.
OpenAI’s Work administration guidance describes how files and approved connected apps can provide context. Have your administrator check the intended combination. An employee’s access to a system doesn’t by itself prove that the source is available in the chosen AI workspace.
What should you agree about privacy and management?
Compare business terms with business terms. Microsoft states that Copilot Chat prompts and responses aren’t used to train foundation models. OpenAI states the same default approach for business data in Business, Enterprise and Edu in its Work security documentation. Neither statement makes a product suitable for every kind of information automatically.
Set rules for what employees may enter and who may approve new connections. Have the applicable arrangements reviewed before using confidential or personal information. Ask what happens to a conversation, attachment and connected source when someone leaves. Treat this as part of the setup; a general claim about security won’t answer those questions.
Test with different user roles. An ordinary employee shouldn’t run the trial through an administrator account. Include a source that should remain out of reach. A correctly worded answer drawn from an unauthorised source isn’t a successful result.
How do you compare Copilot and ChatGPT fairly?
Collect assignments employees already perform. For each task, write down the information required, what a usable result contains and which errors are unacceptable. Use approved test data. Give both tools the same starting conditions and record any extra access or instructions you provide.
Consider a hypothetical sales support team drafting an answer to a delivery query. The employee needs to identify the right order, find its current status and avoid promising an unconfirmed delivery date. Have both tools prepare a draft. Then check whether the cited source supports the date, as well as whether the response reads well.
A practical test sheet might look like this:
| Check | What to record |
|---|---|
| Correct source | Which source supports the answer and how recent it is |
| Correct result | Whether the content meets the assignment defined beforehand |
| Corrections | Changes and follow-up questions needed |
| Time | Total time from preparation to a checked result |
| Uncertainty | Whether missing information is clearly identified |
| Follow-up action | Whether an action waits for the agreed review |
Ask someone who knows the job to assess the result. A polished report can contain mistakes that an outsider won’t recognise. Keep failed attempts too. If you compare only the best output, you’re largely testing who selected the most attractive example.
Why doesn’t a good answer prove a process can be automated?
An employee reviewing a draft is different from a process updating customer records on its own. When a tool takes action, you need to define acceptable inputs, who can intervene and how errors are corrected. Our explanation of AI agents and chatbots explores that distinction.
Ask to see an interruption during the demonstration. What happens if a source doesn’t respond or a task is submitted again? The correct behaviour might be to stop and alert an employee. “The AI tries again” isn’t enough if it could apply the same change twice.
Start with a proposed result that someone can check. Allow further actions once you understand how the system handles exceptions. That’s a design decision for your process, rather than a fixed property of the Copilot or ChatGPT name.
When is custom AI worth considering?
Investigate custom development when you can identify a specific missing component. Perhaps an application must follow your own decision rules, sources are difficult to access, or an approved result needs to return to a business system. Describe that step first. Building an entirely new assistant isn’t automatically the smallest suitable solution.
Compare a setting change, an existing connection and a custom extension before replacing something that works. For answers based on internal knowledge, the main question may be how documents are selected and how answers refer back to their sources. See our guide to an AI agent using your own data and RAG.
Custom development needs its own arrangements for testing, maintenance and changes to the models or services it uses. Include that recurring work in the comparison. Our guide to AI agent costs helps separate development from ongoing usage. Request a proposal for your task, rather than a generic price for “an AI”.
Should you compare Claude versus Copilot too?
It can be useful when someone on the team has a specific task they want to investigate with Claude. Add that option to the same trial. Don’t compare a model name with a fully configured workplace: record the subscription, available sources and permitted actions here too.
Another candidate helps only when it answers a real question. If you don’t yet know which documents an employee needs, a third tool won’t resolve that uncertainty. Establish the requirements first, then add an alternative when it offers a relevant route to investigate.
How do you keep the trial useful after buying licences?
Agree who handles employees’ questions and who manages the settings. Give the team examples of intended tasks, including what they need to check themselves. A general presentation about features doesn’t replace those working instructions.
After an agreed period of use, review the tasks from your trial again. Is the assistant still being used? Which corrections keep recurring? Stop an application if the repair work outweighs the benefit, or adjust its sources and instructions if that’s where the problem lies. Keep findings alongside the original test so the next review has something to build on.
Record which product version you assessed. Features, terms and available models change. You don’t need to restart after every update, but a change to a source or action calls for a focused retest. The decision remains useful only if someone continues to manage it after purchase.
How do you actually get started?
Choose a recurring task, arrange approved test data and describe the required result. Have Copilot and ChatGPT perform it within the business setup you’re considering. Compare checked outputs, correction work and total costs. Then investigate which missing component calls for an extension.
Want to assess existing tools or have a custom AI agent built? Book a call. We’ll turn the trial and the next step into a practical plan.
