Best AI for studying

Why Gemini Notebook leads

Two figures, both from Google own documentation. First, its pipeline converts one bundle of sources into nine output formats: notes, audio overviews, video overviews, mind maps, reports, data tables, flashcards or quizzes, slide decks and infographics. Second, input capacity on the free plan is fifty sources per notebook, each capped at five hundred thousand words. The Gemini app, by comparison, has a capacity of ten files per prompt: enough for a single question, not enough to process a full course.

A third axis has no dedicated column in the table but matters more to a Persian-language reader than either of the other two: Persian is registered on Gemini Notebook output-language list, and the same documentation states that the selected language applies uniformly across the study guide, the audio overview, and chat responses. That means an English input can return Persian output with no auxiliary processing layer involved.

What this table does not measure

Answer quality sits outside this table measurement scope. What is measured here is only how many reviewable formats each tool converts a source into, and how much raw data volume it accepts as input. Claude ranks third here and may well exceed both candidates above it in reasoning and writing; its lower rank comes from producing no audio overview and no flashcards, and from Anthropic publishing no figure for project capacity at all. An empty cell in this table means the vendor has not published a number, not that the value is zero.

One note on the figure 100 itself. Normalization is relative, and in each column the top candidate takes the full weight of that column. So 100 means first place across all five columns of a four-member table, not a complete specification. If a tool with a hundred-source-per-notebook capacity enters this database tomorrow, that same figure drops for Gemini Notebook without anything about it changing.

Why ChatGPT carries no rank

Because no data on ChatGPT itself has been read from its primary source. Pages on openai.com return a 403 to our infrastructure, both through our own fetching tool and through a plain curl request, and the only domain that responds is the API documentation, which says nothing about study mode. A figure quoted on someone else blog does not count as an independent source. So its name is entered in the table, its columns stay empty, and the day that path opens, this is where it gets filled in.

A side finding from this audit

Google renamed the product. The official page, the browser tab title, and the support center all run on Gemini Notebook, while most Persian-language search traffic still targets NotebookLM. If you are searching for a tutorial on this tool and finding nothing, the fault is not on your end.

A second note for anyone auditing this data independently: the citable figures live only on the plan and upgrade pages. The product marketing page, across all three companies, carries not one printable number. Google at least publishes a limits table; Anthropic gives no capacity figure at all. That gap in published data, not a gap in real capability, accounts for part of the distance between ranks.