Head-to-head
Grok 4.3 vs Claude Opus 4.7: which AI model wins in 2026?
Grok 4.3 ($2.50/1M out) and Claude Opus 4.7 ($25/1M out) are two of the most-used AI models in 2026. Across 3 community votes, Claude Opus 4.7 leads with 57% approval.
Quick verdict
On Reasoning, pick Claude Opus 4.7: the arena rates it 4.5/5 against 4/5 for Grok 4.3. On budget, Grok 4.3 wins: it starts at $2.50/1M out versus $25/1M out for Claude Opus 4.7.
Line-by-line comparison
Strengths and weaknesses
Grok 4.3
- Aggressive pricing: $1.25/$2.50 per 1M tokens, 58% cheaper input and 83% cheaper output than Grok 4, undercutting GPT-5.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Major agentic leap: +321 Elo on GDPval-AA versus Grok 4.20, with strong tool calling and instruction following
- Cached input at $0.20/1M (84% discount), a big saver for repeated agent loops
- Configurable reasoning effort (none/low/medium/high) in one model at one price, no routing between fast and deep variants
- Praised on HN for natural, concise tone and token-dense outputs that lower real-world costs
- Solid throughput around 130 output tokens/sec (Artificial Analysis)
- Coding reasoning judged 'not competitive with the big April releases' by HN developers; intelligence frontier barely moved since Grok 4
- Non-hallucination score dropped 8 points vs Grok 4.20 on AA-Omniscience; 4.20 remains xAI's safer pick for precision-critical domains
- High time to first token (~13s at high reasoning effort per Artificial Analysis), painful for interactive apps
- Context window shrank to 1M from Grok 4.20's 2M
- Recurring trust and safety complaints (harmful content reports, inconsistent behavior) and no MCP/connected-apps support in the consumer app
Claude Opus 4.7
- 87.6% SWE-bench Verified (up from 80.8% on Opus 4.6) and 64.3% SWE-bench Pro at launch, ahead of GPT-5.4 (57.7%) and Gemini 3.1 Pro (54.2%)
- 1M-token context window and 128K max output at flat $5/$25 pricing with no long-context premium (300K output via Batch API beta)
- First Claude with high-resolution vision: accepts images up to 2576px on the long edge with pixel-accurate coordinates, ~3x prior detail
- Standout code review: finds more real bugs with stronger cross-file reasoning than rivals in independent tests, and 21% fewer document-reasoning errors than Opus 4.6
- Fine cost control via new xhigh effort level and Task Budgets (beta): low-effort 4.7 roughly matches medium-effort 4.6 output quality
- Recent knowledge: reliable cutoff of January 2026, the freshest of any Claude model at release
- New tokenizer inflates token counts roughly 30% for the same text versus pre-4.7 models (per Anthropic's own docs), raising effective per-request cost despite the unchanged sticker price
- Very verbose in agentic use: one benchmark found GPT-5.5 used 72% fewer output tokens on equivalent coding tasks, and reviewers call its narration over-communicative
- Breaking API changes bite migrators: temperature/top_p/top_k and thinking budget_tokens now return 400 errors, and thinking text is hidden by default
- Moderate latency with minutes-long turns at high effort; fast mode is a premium research preview already deprecated on 4.7
- Superseded by Opus 4.8 at the same $5/$25 within ~3 months, and real-time cybersecurity safeguards can false-positive on legitimate security work
Cast your verdict
One recommendation per tool per gladiator. It reshapes the crowd score everyone sees.
The arena’s verdict on Grok 4.3
Pick Grok 4.3 if you run agentic or high-volume pipelines where cost per call dominates: it delivers near-frontier reasoning and a big tool-calling jump over Grok 4.20 at a fraction of GPT-5.5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro pricing. Skip it if coding precision is your priority, as developers still rank Claude and the big April releases ahead. Also stay on Grok 4.20 if you need its 2M context or its better non-hallucination score for legal, medical, or compliance work. Latency-sensitive apps should test the ~13s time to first token before committing.
The arena’s verdict on Claude Opus 4.7
Choose Opus 4.7 only if you are already pinned to it for reproducibility: Opus 4.8 costs the same $5/$25, keeps an identical API surface, and outperforms it, making it the better default for new projects. It remains a very strong pick for agentic coding, code review and 1M-context document work, and is a clear upgrade over Opus 4.6. Teams migrating from 4.6 should budget for breaking API changes and a tokenizer that yields roughly 30% more tokens per prompt. Cost-sensitive users should look at Sonnet 5, which delivers near-Opus quality at $3/$15 (intro $2/$10 through August 31, 2026).
What the crowd says
On Grok 4.3
No verdicts yet. Be the first to speak.
On Claude Opus 4.7
“Watch your invoices. New tokenizer counts ~30% more tokens for the same text, and it narrates every tiny step. Sticker price unchanged, effective cost definitely not.”
“Came from 4.6 and stopped chunking repos entirely. 1M context, 128K output, flat $5/$25 with no long-context premium. That pricing decision alone won me over.”
“87.6 SWE-bench Verified is not just marketing, it closes tickets GPT-5.4 fumbles. And the hi-res vision with pixel-accurate coords finally makes screenshot debugging useful.”
Keep comparing
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.3 better than Claude Opus 4.7?
The crowd currently sides with Claude Opus 4.7: 57% recommend it, versus 50% for Grok 4.3 (3 votes). On Reasoning, Claude Opus 4.7 rates higher (4.5/5 vs 4/5). The right pick depends on your use case. The line-by-line comparison on this page breaks down pricing, key specs and arena ratings.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.3 or Claude Opus 4.7?
Grok 4.3 is cheaper: it starts at $2.50/1M out, while Claude Opus 4.7 starts at $25/1M out.
How much do Grok 4.3 and Claude Opus 4.7 cost per 1M tokens?
Grok 4.3: $1.25/1M in per 1M input tokens, $2.50/1M out per 1M output tokens. Claude Opus 4.7: $5/1M in per 1M input tokens, $25/1M out per 1M output tokens.