The Challenge
The task was straightforward: create a console application that reads an Excel file and outputs its contents as a Markdown file. This type of data transformation is a common requirement in many development workflows, making it an ideal real-world test case.
Both AIs were given identical requirements and worked within Visual Studio Code to generate their solutions. Claude Code operated on a subscription model, while Grok used a consumption-based API pricing model.
Claude's Approach
Claude generated a C# console application using the ClosedXML library (version 0.105.0). Here are the key characteristics of Claude's solution:
Architecture Highlights
Key architecture decisions: • Library Choice: ClosedXML, a popular open-source Excel manipulation library • Target Framework: .NET 8.0 with implicit usings and nullable reference types enabled • Code Structure: Clean separation of concerns with a dedicated ConvertExcelToMarkdown method
Key Features
- Command-line argument support for custom file paths
- Comprehensive error handling with try-catch blocks
- File existence validation before processing
- Support for multiple worksheets
- Conditional formatting (only outputs non-empty values)
- Item numbering with separator lines between records
- Proper resource disposal using
usingstatements - Code Complexity: 88 lines with robust error handling and formatting logic
Claude's Code Sample
Example showing Claude's approach with ClosedXML
// Claude's approach with ClosedXML
static void ConvertExcelToMarkdown(string excelPath, string markdownPath)
{
using var workbook = new XLWorkbook(excelPath);
using var writer = new StreamWriter(markdownPath);
writer.WriteLine($"# Excel to Markdown Conversion");
writer.WriteLine($"Source: {Path.GetFileName(excelPath)}");
writer.WriteLine();
foreach (var worksheet in workbook.Worksheets)
{
// Process with conditional formatting
// Only outputs non-empty values
}
}Grok's Approach
Grok opted for a different solution using the EPPlus library (version 6.0.0):
Architecture Highlights
Key architecture decisions: • Library Choice: EPPlus, a widely-used Excel library for .NET • Target Framework: .NET 8.0 (simpler project configuration) • Code Structure: More compact, single-method approach
Key Features
- Hardcoded file paths (simpler but less flexible)
- License context configuration for EPPlus
- Straightforward linear processing
- Consistent output for all cells (including empty ones)
- Item numbering for each row
- Direct file writing with StreamWriter
- Code Complexity: 47 lines with a more streamlined approach
Grok's Code Sample
Example showing Grok's approach with EPPlus
// Grok's approach with EPPlus
ExcelPackage.LicenseContext = LicenseContext.NonCommercial;
using (var package = new ExcelPackage(new FileInfo("example.xlsx")))
using (var writer = new StreamWriter("output.md"))
{
writer.WriteLine("# Excel to Markdown Conversion");
writer.WriteLine($"Source: example.xlsx");
writer.WriteLine();
var worksheet = package.Workbook.Worksheets[0];
// Direct linear processing
// Outputs all cells including empty ones
}Key Differences
Side-by-side comparison of Claude and Grok approaches
| Aspect | Claude | Grok |
|---|---|---|
| Library Selection | ClosedXML - Intuitive API | EPPlus - Performance focused |
| Error Handling | Comprehensive with file checks | Minimal, happy path focus |
| Flexibility | Command-line arguments | Hardcoded paths |
| Output Formatting | Filters empty values | Outputs all cells |
| Code Philosophy | Defensive programming | Pragmatic simplicity |
| Lines of Code | 88 lines | 47 lines |
Performance Considerations
Both solutions performed excellently in generating working code quickly. The generation time was comparable, with both AIs producing functional solutions within seconds. The real differences lie in:
- Runtime Performance: EPPlus (Grok) is generally known for better performance with large files
- Memory Usage: ClosedXML (Claude) might use more memory but offers a more intuitive API
- Maintainability: Claude's more verbose approach may be easier to maintain and debug
Cost Analysis
An interesting aspect of this comparison is the pricing model difference:
- Claude Code: Subscription-based model with a fixed monthly cost
- Grok: Consumption-based API pricing, paying only for what you use
For occasional users or specific projects, Grok's pay-per-use model might be more economical. For regular development work, Claude's subscription could provide better value.
"Both AI assistants successfully completed the task, demonstrating that modern AI coding tools have reached a level of maturity where they can reliably generate functional code for common programming tasks. Choose Claude if you value robust error handling, flexible production-ready code, and comprehensive solutions with edge case handling. Choose Grok if you prefer concise straightforward implementations, quick prototypes, and a pay-per-use pricing model."
Conclusion
This comparison reveals that the choice between AI coding assistants isn't about which one is "better" in absolute terms, but rather which one aligns with your specific needs, coding style, and budget. Both Claude and Grok produced excellent, working solutions - just with different philosophies.
As AI coding assistants continue to evolve, the real winner is the developer community, which now has access to powerful tools that can significantly accelerate development workflows. Whether you're converting Excel files to Markdown or tackling more complex challenges, these AI assistants prove themselves as valuable additions to the modern developer's toolkit.
Try It Yourself
The complete code from both AIs is available on GitHub for you to explore, run, and compare. Feel free to test them with your own Excel files and see which approach works better for your use case.
Watch the side-by-side comparison in action: YouTube Video
