OfficeQA Pro
We haven't written a description for this benchmark yet; see the card notes below for how each maker ran it.
- ModelScoreYour cost / mo
- 1Claude Opus 4.7 · Anthropicbest value80.6%
- 2Grok 4.6 · xAIbest value63.2%
- 3Dola Seed 2.1 Turbo · ByteDancebest value62.8%
“Best value”: no other model here reports a higher score at a lower cost for your workload. Scores are self-reported by each maker with different settings, so treat close calls as ties.
How each maker reported it
- Claude Opus 4.7 Table 8.1.A, p.191–192
Opus 4.7 uses adaptive thinking at max effort with default sampling, averaged over 5 trials (Terminal-Bench 2.0 with thinking disabled; Finance Agent at high effort). Competitor figures come from the developers' own published cards or leaderboards.
- Grok 4.6 §2–7, p.7–28
Grok models at high effort (EEBench Grok 4.6 xhigh is 60.0%). Competitors at max effort (Fable 5 with fallback); GPT-5.6 Sol at xhigh on APEX-SWE and CADGenBench, high on DeepSearchQA. Most results come from third-party evaluators, each with its own harness. CyberGym is run without production safeguards.
- Dola Seed 2.1 Turbo Tables 1, 2, 5, 11 (pp.9, 10, 19, 53)
ByteDance's own runs from the Seed2.1 model card. Seed 2.1 Pro (not on BytePlus) is shown for reference. ProgramBench is reported as the average pass rate.
Only each model's own maker's number is shown; scores a maker reports for rival models are left out.