# Claude Opus 4.7 vs Grok 3

> Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-7-vs-grok-3
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 29

## Summary

- They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 9 categories and Grok 3 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 53.8 to 13.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 93.5% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 5.5% for Grok 3.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 39.9 |
| Rank | 19 | 157 |
| Context | 1M | — |
| Input $/M | $5 | — |
| Output $/M | $25 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13)
- Grok 3: 41.9 (#115)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 3 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 76.4% | 37.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1518 | 1432 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 83.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 53.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1558 | — |
| SciCode | 54.5% | — |
| GSO | 44.1% | — |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,323 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10)
- Grok 3: 30.5 (#76)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 49.2% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 18.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 40.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 28.6% | — |
| BALROG | — | 29.5% |
| ExploitBench | 26.5% | — |
| GBAEval | 43.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 21% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1233 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,937 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29)
- Grok 3: 13.7 (#333)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 3 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 75.8% | 0% |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | 36.1% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.7% | 61.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 93.5% | 5.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1506 | 1434 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.25 | 138.33 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 39% | — |
| CritPt | 12% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 30% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 72.8% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 19% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 28% | — |
| DTBench | 94.7% | — |
| LMCA | 52.2% | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26)
- Grok 3: 38.0 (#145)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 3 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | 55.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1499 | 1391 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 43.8% | 3.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | 0% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 70.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 73.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 54% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 46.4% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 88.7% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23)
- Grok 3: 46.2 (#82)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 3 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | 75.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | 5.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1521 | 1421 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 78.8% |
| Confabulations | — | 14.2% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 65% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38)
- Grok 3: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 33.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10)
- Grok 3: 52.3 (#87)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1480 | 1410 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1531 | 1448 |
| LMArena French | 1503 | 1460 |
| LMArena German | 1495 | 1431 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1472 | 1387 |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | 1373 |
| LMArena Russian | 1494 | 1416 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1495 | 1417 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10)
- Grok 3: 75.0 (#73)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1498 | 1409 |
| IFEval | — | 88.4% |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25)
- Grok 3: 38.7 (#192)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1505 | 1439 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 58.3% |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8)
- Grok 3: 55.8 (#141)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1490 | 1426 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1486 | 1414 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1914 | 1186 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1505 | 1425 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 76.4% |
| WildBench | — | 84.9% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1311 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Grok 3?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Grok 3 better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 41.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Grok 3 share?

29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Grok 3 has 40.