Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- Not measured
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Grok 4.3
Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Claude Opus 4.7 has the higher public score estimate, 71.28 versus 64.2, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
2 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Grok 4.3
Grok 4.3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Grok 4.3
Grok 4.3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Claude Opus 4.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Grok 4.3
Grok 4.3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
6 Claude Opus 4.7 only
2 Shared
- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 6
- Grok 4.3 only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- Not measured
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- Not measured
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- Not measured
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- 38.6
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- Not measured
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- Not measured
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- Not measured
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 4.3 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 38.6 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
- Grok 4.3
- $0.0025
- Fits in one request
Grok 4.3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- Grok 4.3
- $0.07
- Fits in one request
Grok 4.3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7
- $1.35
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Grok 4.3
- $0.09
- Fits in one request
Grok 4.3 has the lower modeled cost
Claude Opus 4.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.7Grok 4.3
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.7
Grok 4.3
1M
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.7
claude-opus-4-7
Anthropic model ID documentationGrok 4.3
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Opus 4.7
Not published
Grok 4.3
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Claude Opus 4.7
text, image
Anthropic model overviewGrok 4.3
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 4.7
Grok 4.3
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.7
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewGrok 4.3
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.7
Non-Reasoning
Grok 4.3
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.7
Proprietary
Grok 4.3
Proprietary
License
Claude Opus 4.7
Proprietary
Grok 4.3
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Opus 4.7
2026-04-16
Grok 4.3
2026-04-30
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Claude Opus 4.7 has the higher public score estimate, 71.28 versus 64.2, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.07. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.09.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence8 rows
Agentic
Gert Labs
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.765.59%Grok 4.343.86%Claude Opus 4.7 leads this result
ResearchClawBench
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.720.7%Grok 4.312.4%Claude Opus 4.7 leads this result
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.713.9%SourceGrok 4.3—Not directly comparable
Coding
Math
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Grok 4.3?
Claude Opus 4.7 has the higher public score estimate, 71.28 versus 64.2, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 or Grok 4.3?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 or Grok 4.3?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.7 or Grok 4.3?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.7 and $0.0025 on Grok 4.3; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.07; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.09. Claude Opus 4.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 or Grok 4.3?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 30, 2026
Watch Claude Opus 4.7 vs Grok 4.3
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.