Skip to content
Rival
Models
Compare
Best ForArenaPricing
Sign Up
Sign Up

We compare AI models for a living. On purpose. We chose this.

@rival_tips

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Find Your Model
  • Image Generation
  • Audio Comparison
  • Best AI For...
  • Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • Insights
  • Research
  • AI Creators
  • AI Tools
  • The Graveyard

Developers

  • Developer Hub
  • MCP Server
  • Rival Datasets

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Sponsor a Model
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
© 2026 Rival · Built at hours no one should be awake, on hardware we don't own
Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs PaLM 2 Chat: Which Is Better? [2026 Comparison]
Rival
Models
Compare
Best ForArenaPricing
Sign Up
Sign Up
  1. Home
  2. Compare
  3. Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs PaLM 2 Chat
Updated Feb 25, 2025

Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs PaLM 2 Chat

Compare Claude 3.7 Sonnet by Anthropic against PaLM 2 Chat by Google AI, context windows of 200K vs 8K, tested across 17 shared challenges. Updated April 2026.

Which is better, Claude 3.7 Sonnet or PaLM 2 Chat?

Claude 3.7 Sonnet and PaLM 2 Chat are both competitive models. Claude 3.7 Sonnet costs $3/M input tokens vs $0.5/M for PaLM 2 Chat. Context windows: 200K vs 8K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.

Key Differences Between Claude 3.7 Sonnet and PaLM 2 Chat

Claude 3.7 Sonnet is made by anthropic while PaLM 2 Chat is from google. Claude 3.7 Sonnet has a 200K token context window compared to PaLM 2 Chat's 8K. On pricing, Claude 3.7 Sonnet costs $3/M input tokens vs $0.5/M for PaLM 2 Chat.

Loading share button...

Claude 3.7 SonnetvsPaLM 2 Chat

17 fights queued

Claude 3.7 Sonnet logo

Why Claude 3.7 Sonnet?

24.4x more context200K
20 months newerFeb 2025
PaLM 2 Chat logo

Why PaLM 2 Chat?

20.4x cheaper overall$0.50/M in · $0.50/M out
Claude 3.7 SonnetPaLM 2 Chat
Input price
$3.00/M
$0.50/M
Output price
$15.00/M
$0.50/M
Context
200K
8K
Released
Feb 2025
Jul 2023

Favorites

Claude 3.7 SonnetPaLM 2 Chat
Movie
The Shawshank Redemption

The Shawshank Redemption

19948.7
—
Album
OK Computer

OK Computer

Radiohead
—
Book
To Kill a Mockingbird

To Kill a Mockingbird

Harper Lee
—
City
Tokyo

Tokyo

Japan
—
Game
Portal 2

Portal 2

Shooter, Puzzle4.6
—
12 / 17
01

Estimate Complexityreasoning

Tests an AI's ability to make educated estimates based on technical knowledge

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Anthropic · Feb 2025text

Estimating FLOPs for GPT-3 Training

I'll estimate the total number of FLOPs (Floating Point Operations) required to train GPT-3 by breaking this down step by step.

GPT-3 Architecture Facts

From what I recall about GPT-3:

  • Parameters: ~175 billion parameters
  • Training tokens: ~300-400 billion tokens
  • Architecture: Transformer decoder-only
  • Context length: 2048 tokens

Step 1: FLOPs per Forward Pass

In a transformer model, the main computational components are:

  • Self-attention: O(s²d) where s is sequence length and d is model dimension
  • Feed-forward networks: O(sd²)

For GPT-3, if we assume:

  • Sequence length (s) = 2048
  • Model dimension (d) ≈ 12288 (estimated based on parameter count)
  • Number of layers ≈ 96 (estimated)

FLOPs per token in forward pass:

  • Self-attention: ~2 × 2048² × 12288 × 96 ≈ 4.8 × 10¹²
  • Feed-forward: ~2 × 2048 × 12288² × 96 ≈ 5.9 × 10¹³
  • Total per forward pass: ~6.4 × 10¹³ FLOPs

Step 2: FLOPs per Backward Pass

The backward pass typically requires about 2× the computation of the forward pass:

  • Backward pass: ~2 × 6.4 × 10¹³ ≈ 1.3 × 10¹⁴ FLOPs

Step 3: FLOPs per Training Step

For each training step:

  • Forward + backward: ~6.4 × 10¹³ + 1.3 × 10¹⁴ ≈ 1.9 × 10¹⁴ FLOPs

Step 4: Total Training FLOPs

If GPT-3 was trained on ~300 billion tokens:

  • Total FLOPs: 1.9 × 10¹⁴ × 3 × 10¹¹ ≈ 5.7 × 10²⁵ FLOPs

Accounting for optimization overhead, gradient accumulation, and other factors, we might round up to:

  • Total training FLOPs: ~10²⁶ FLOPs

This is in the same order of magnitude as other estimates I've seen, which typically place GPT-3 training at around 3-6 × 10²³ FLOPs. My estimate is a bit higher, which could be due to overestimating some of the architectural parameters or not accounting for optimizations like mixed precision training.

Try this prompt
PaLM 2 Chat

PaLM 2 Chat

Google · Jul 2023text

To estimate the total number of FLOPs required to train GPT-3 without searching online, we can make several assumptions and perform calculations based on the information available about GPT-3's architecture and training process. Here's a step-by-step explanation of the reasoning:
Step 1: Determine the number of parameters in GPT-3

GPT-3 is a massive language model with 175 billion parameters. Each parameter represents a trainable weight in the neural network, and updating these weights during training requires floating-point operations (FLOPs).

Step 2: Estimate the number of training iterations

The number of training iterations refers to how many times the entire training dataset is passed through the neural network during the training process. Although the exact number may vary, let's assume that GPT-3 was trained for 100 epochs.

Step 3: Calculate the FLOPs per iteration

During each training iteration, the neural network performs forward and backward passes. The forward pass involves computing the output of the network given the input, while the backward pass involves calculating the gradients of the loss function with respect to the network's weights.
For simplicity, we can assume that the forward and backward passes have roughly the same number of FLOPs. Therefore, the total FLOPs per iteration can be estimated by multiplying the number of parameters by 2 (forward and backward passes).

Total FLOPs per iteration = (Number of parameters) x 2

(175 billion parameters) x 2 = 350 billion FLOPs per iteration

Step 4: Calculate the total FLOPs for training

Multiplying the FLOPs per iteration by the number of training iterations gives us the total FLOPs required to train GPT-3.

Total FLOPs for training = (FLOPs per iteration) x (Number of iterations)

(350 billion FLOPs per iteration) x (100 iterations) = 35 trillion FLOPs for training

Therefore, based on these assumptions, we estimate that training GPT-3 without searching online would require approximately 35 trillion FLOPs.

Try this prompt
Vote
2 / 17
02

AI Board Game Logicreasoning

Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Anthropic · Feb 2025svg
Try this prompt
PaLM 2 Chat

PaLM 2 Chat

Google · Jul 2023svg
Try this prompt
Vote
3 / 17
03

Logic Puzzlereasoning

Tests an AI's ability to solve a simple but potentially confusing logic puzzle

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Anthropic · Feb 2025text

This is an interesting logical reasoning problem! Let's work through it step by step.

We know:

  • Sally is a girl
  • Sally has 3 brothers
  • Each brother has 2 sisters

The key insight is that Sally herself counts as a sister to her brothers. So when we're told that "each brother has 2 sisters," Sally is one of those sisters.

Since each brother has 2 sisters total, and Sally is one of them, that means each brother has 1 sister besides Sally.

But all brothers share the same sisters (they're all siblings in the same family). So if Sally has 3 brothers, and each brother has the same 2 sisters (Sally and someone else), then Sally has exactly 1 sister.

Therefore, Sally has 1 sister.

Try this prompt
PaLM 2 Chat

PaLM 2 Chat

Google · Jul 2023text

Sally has 2 sisters.

Try this prompt
Vote
4 / 17
04

Math Misconception Testreasoning

Tests an AI's understanding of number representation

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Anthropic · Feb 2025text

Yes, 9.11 is greater than 9.9.

When comparing decimal numbers, we look at the digits from left to right. Both numbers have the same digit in the ones place (9), so we move to the tenths place:

  • 9.11 has 1 in the tenths place
  • 9.9 has 9 in the tenths place

Since 1 is less than 9, it might seem like 9.9 should be greater. However, we need to ensure we're comparing equivalent decimal places. We can rewrite 9.9 as 9.90 to align the decimal places:

  • 9.11
  • 9.90

Now comparing:

  • In the ones place: both have 9 (equal)
  • In the tenths place: 1 < 9, so 9.9 appears greater
  • But 9.9 is actually 9.90, so 9.11 > 9.90

Therefore, 9.11 is greater than 9.9.

Try this prompt
PaLM 2 Chat

PaLM 2 Chat

Google · Jul 2023text

9.11 is less than 9.9.

Try this prompt
Vote
5 / 17
05

Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis

Tests an AI's randomness and creativity

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Anthropic · Feb 2025text
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
PaLM 2 Chat

PaLM 2 Chat

Google · Jul 2023text
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Vote
6 / 17
06

SVG Layout Challengeimage generation

Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Anthropic · Feb 2025svg
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
PaLM 2 Chat

PaLM 2 Chat

Google · Jul 2023svg
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Vote
Sponsored
7 / 17
07

Minimalist Landing Pageweb design

Tests an AI's ability to generate a complete, working landing page

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Anthropic · Feb 2025website
Try this prompt
PaLM 2 Chat

PaLM 2 Chat

Google · Jul 2023website
Try this prompt
Vote
8 / 17
08

Pokémon Battle UI Recreationweb design

Recreate an interactive, nostalgic Pokémon battle UI in a single HTML file.

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Anthropic · Feb 2025website
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
PaLM 2 Chat

PaLM 2 Chat

Google · Jul 2023website
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Vote
9 / 17
09

Linear App Cloneweb design

Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Anthropic · Feb 2025website
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
PaLM 2 Chat

PaLM 2 Chat

Google · Jul 2023website
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Vote
10 / 17
10

Framer-Style Animationweb design

Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Anthropic · Feb 2025website
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
PaLM 2 Chat

PaLM 2 Chat

Google · Jul 2023website
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Vote
11 / 17
11

Dark Mode Dashboardweb design

Tests an AI's UI design skills with theming support

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Anthropic · Feb 2025website
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
PaLM 2 Chat

PaLM 2 Chat

Google · Jul 2023website
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Vote
12 / 17
12

Interactive Catan Boardweb design

Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Anthropic · Feb 2025website
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
PaLM 2 Chat

PaLM 2 Chat

Google · Jul 2023website
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Vote

This matchup has more rounds

5+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.

Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy Policy

Our Verdict
Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Claude 3.7 Sonnet
PaLM 2 Chat
PaLM 2 ChatRunner-up

No community votes yet. On paper, Claude 3.7 Sonnet has the edge — newer, bigger context window.

PaLM 2 Chat is 30x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.

Too close to call
Writing DNA

Style Comparison

Similarity
94%

Claude 3.7 Sonnet uses 24.8x more headings

Claude 3.7 Sonnet
PaLM 2 Chat
62%Vocabulary63%
35wSentence Length16w
0.99Hedging0.77
1.2Bold3.4
4.3Lists1.3
0.00Emoji0.00
1.78Headings0.07
0.23Transitions0.27
Based on 13 + 9 text responses
vs

Ask them anything yourself

Claude 3.7 SonnetPaLM 2 Chat

Some models write identically. You are paying for the brand.

178 models fingerprinted across 32 writing dimensions. Free research.

Model Similarity Index

185x

price gap between models that write identically

178

models

12

clone pairs

32

dimensions

Devstral M / S
95.7%
Qwen3 Coder / Flash
95.6%
GPT-5.4 / Mini
93.3%
Read the full reportor download the 14-slide PDF

279 AI models invented the same fake scientist.

We read every word. 250 models. 2.14 million words. This is what we found.

AI Hallucination Index 2026
Free preview13 of 58 slides
Download the free previewor get all 58 slides for $49
FAQ

Common questions

Keep going
PaLM 2 Chat logoLlama 4 Maverick logo

We compare AI models for a living. On purpose. We chose this.

@rival_tips

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Find Your Model
  • Image Generation
  • Audio Comparison
  • Best AI For...
  • Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • Insights
  • Research
  • AI Creators
  • AI Tools
  • The Graveyard

Developers

  • Developer Hub
  • MCP Server
  • Rival Datasets

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Sponsor a Model
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
© 2026 Rival · Built at hours no one should be awake, on hardware we don't own
PaLM 2 Chat vs Llama 4 MaverickNew provider
PaLM 2 Chat logoGPT-5 logo
PaLM 2 Chat vs GPT-5New provider
Claude 3.7 Sonnet logoMiniMax M2.5 logo
Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs MiniMax M2.5New provider