Model comparison
Grok 4.7 vs o3-mini
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index. o3-mini costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and o3-mini in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.7 leads 49.1 to 16.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 56% for Grok 4.7 and 15.3% for o3-mini.
- o3-mini is cheaper at $1.10 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.7.
- Grok 4.7 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.7 | o3-mini | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 53.1 | 36.7 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2024-12-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 500K | 200K |
| Max output | 500K | 100K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $1.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 39 | 51 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 58.0 (#18), o3-mini: 40.8 (#132)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 57.8% | 39.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | 1378 |
| FrontierCode | 47.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 60.4% |
| CursorBench | 46.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1639 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 29.5% | — |
| GSO | — | 1.3% |
| WeirdML | — | 43.7% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 82.7% |
| CadEval | — | 54% |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), o3-mini: 29.6 (#84)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 54.6% | — |
| Cybench | — | 22.5% |
| GDP.pdf | 22.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,537 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), o3-mini: 16.3 (#305)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 18% | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | 38% | 17% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1413 | 1366 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 29% | 7% |
| DTBench | 96% | 68.8% |
| LMCA | 49.4% | 19% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.53 | 140.34 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 3% |
| SimpleBench | — | 22.8% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 76.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 34.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 89.6% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 70.6% |
| ForecastBench | — | 59.6 |
| LiveBench | — | 75.9% |
Math Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), o3-mini: 28.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 53% | 18.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | 0% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.1% | 76.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1407 | 1396 |
| ProofBench | 34% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 96.5% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 12.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 4.2% |
Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), o3-mini: 38.3 (#146)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 92.7% | 77% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 56% | 15.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1422 | 1364 |
| Confabulations | — | 17.9% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), o3-mini: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1228 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 32.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 20.8% | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), o3-mini: 45.7 (#164)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1389 | 1319 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1455 | 1379 |
| LMArena French | 1455 | 1334 |
| LMArena Russian | 1397 | 1304 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1400 | 1321 |
| LMArena German | — | 1303 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1286 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1314 |
Instruction Following o3-mini leads
Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), o3-mini: 75.1 (#72)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1337 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 84.4% |
Long Context Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), o3-mini: 33.8 (#256)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1413 | 1343 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 50% |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), o3-mini: 50.3 (#182)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1399 | 1337 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1391 | 1286 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1393 | 1320 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 61.7% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2007 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 50.7% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.7 better than o3-mini?
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index. o3-mini costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.7 or o3-mini?
o3-mini is cheaper. It lists at $1.10 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Grok 4.7 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Grok 4.7 or o3-mini better for coding?
Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 40.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.7 does, with 500K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and o3-mini share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and o3-mini has 51.