Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs StarCoder 2 3B
Claude Opus 4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#19); StarCoder 2 3B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
NVIDIASummary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 1 category and StarCoder 2 3B in 0 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 59.6 to 33.5.
- StarCoder 2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.7 | StarCoder 2 3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | NVIDIA |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 36.3 |
| Released | 2026-04-14 | 2024-02-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 66 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), StarCoder 2 3B: 33.5
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | StarCoder 2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 83.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1558 | — |
| SciCode | 54.5% | — |
| GSO | 44.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1518 | — |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 21.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,323 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 27.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), StarCoder 2 3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | StarCoder 2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 49.2% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 18.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 40.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 28.6% | — |
| ExploitBench | 26.5% | — |
| GBAEval | 43.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 21% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1233 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,937 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), StarCoder 2 3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | StarCoder 2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.25 | 88.76 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 75.8% | — |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 39% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 93.5% | — |
| CritPt | 12% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 30% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 72.8% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 19% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1506 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 28% | — |
| DTBench | 94.7% | — |
| LMCA | 52.2% | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | — |
| WinoGrande | — | 57.1% |
Math Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), StarCoder 2 3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | StarCoder 2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 70.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 73.6% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 54% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1499 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 21.6% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), StarCoder 2 3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | StarCoder 2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1521 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 34.2% |
| MMLU | — | 36.6% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), StarCoder 2 3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | StarCoder 2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 33.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), StarCoder 2 3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | StarCoder 2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1480 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1531 | — |
| LMArena French | 1503 | — |
| LMArena German | 1495 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1472 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1494 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1495 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), StarCoder 2 3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | StarCoder 2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1498 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), StarCoder 2 3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | StarCoder 2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1505 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), StarCoder 2 3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | StarCoder 2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1490 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1486 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1914 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1311 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1505 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than StarCoder 2 3B?
Claude Opus 4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#19); StarCoder 2 3B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or StarCoder 2 3B better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and StarCoder 2 3B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and StarCoder 2 3B has 7.