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 Sherlock Dash Alpha: Which Is Better? [2026 Comparison]
Rival
Models
Compare
Best ForArenaPricing
Sign Up
Sign Up
  1. Home
  2. Compare
  3. Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs Sherlock Dash Alpha
Updated Nov 15, 2025

Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs Sherlock Dash Alpha

Compare Claude 3.7 Sonnet by Anthropic against Sherlock Dash Alpha by OpenRouter, in 1 community votes, claude 3.7 sonnet wins 100% of head-to-head duels, tested across 35 shared challenges. Updated April 2026.

Which is better, Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Sherlock Dash Alpha?

Claude 3.7 Sonnet is the better choice overall, winning 100% of 1 blind community votes on Rival. Compare their real outputs side by side below.

Key Differences Between Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Sherlock Dash Alpha

Claude 3.7 Sonnet is made by anthropic while Sherlock Dash Alpha is from openrouter. In community voting, In 1 community votes, Claude 3.7 Sonnet wins 100% of head-to-head duels.

In 1 community votes, Claude 3.7 Sonnet wins 100% of head-to-head duels. Based on blind community voting from the Rival open dataset of 1+ human preference judgments for this pair.

Loading share button...

Claude 3.7 SonnetvsSherlock Dash Alpha

35 fights queued

Claude 3.7 Sonnet logo

Why Claude 3.7 Sonnet?

Dead even. This one's a coin flip.
Sherlock Dash Alpha logo

Why Sherlock Dash Alpha?

9 months newerNov 2025
Claude 3.7 SonnetSherlock Dash Alpha
Input price
$3.00/M
—
Output price
$15.00/M
—
Context
200K
—
Released
Feb 2025
Nov 2025

Favorites

Claude 3.7 SonnetSherlock Dash Alpha
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 / 35
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
Sherlock Dash Alpha

Sherlock Dash Alpha

Openrouter · Nov 2025text

Step-by-Step Reasoning for Estimating GPT-3 Training FLOPs

1. Recall GPT-3 Key Specs (from Memory)

  • GPT-3 (175B parameter version): 175 billion parameters (1.75 × 10¹¹).
  • Trained on 300 billion tokens (3 × 10¹¹ tokens). This is the standard figure from OpenAI's reports.
  • Architecture: Standard Transformer decoder-only model.
  • Batch size, sequence length, etc., aren't precisely recalled, but typical for such models: sequence length ~2K-4K tokens, large batch sizes (e.g., effective 1M+ tokens via gradient accumulation).

2. FLOPs Formula for Transformer Training

The standard empirical formula for total FLOPs in training autoregressive Transformers (from papers like Kaplan et al., Hoffmann et al., and used for GPT-3 estimates) is:

[ \text{Total FLOPs} \approx 6 \times N \times D ]

  • N = number of parameters (1.75 × 10¹¹).
  • D = number of tokens processed (3 × 10¹¹).
  • Why 6?
    • Forward pass: ~2 FLOPs per parameter per token (matrix multiplies dominate).
    • Backward pass: ~4 FLOPs per parameter per token (gradients roughly double the forward cost).
    • Total ~6× per token. This is a well-established rule-of-thumb validated across models like GPT-2/3, PaLM, etc. (ignores minor overheads like activations, which are ~20% but absorbed in the approximation).

This excludes pretraining optimizations (e.g., activations checkpointing saves ~30% memory but not FLOPs).

3. Plug in the Numbers

[ \text{Total FLOPs} = 6 \times (1.75 \times 10^{11}) \times (3 \times 10^{11}) ]

  • First, (1.75 \times 3 = 5.25).
  • Then, (5.25 \times 10^{11} \times 10^{11} = 5.25 \times 10^{22}).
  • Multiply by 6: (6 \times 5.25 = 31.5), so (3.15 \times 10^{23}) FLOPs.

4. Refinements and Validation

  • Exact public figure: OpenAI and analyses (e.g., Epoch AI, Srivastava et al.) confirm ~3.14 × 10²³ FLOPs (or 314 sextillion). My calculation hits it spot-on.
  • Sensitivity checks:
    VariableBase ValueIf 20% LowerIf 20% HigherImpact on Total FLOPs
    Parameters (N)175B140B210B2.51×10²³ / 3.78×10²³
    Tokens (D)300B240B360B2.51×10²³ / 3.78×10²³
    Multiplier65 (forward-heavy)7 (extra overhead)2.63×10²³ / 3.67×10²³
    • Even with ±20% uncertainty, range is ~2.5–3.8 × 10²³. Base case is robust.
  • Other factors: No major adjustments needed for GPT-3 (no MoE sparsity, standard dense training). Compute was on ~10K V100/A100 GPUs for ~1 month, consistent with this FLOP count (each A100 does ~300 TFLOPS effective).

5. Final Estimate

~3.1 × 10²³ FLOPs (or 310 sextillion floating-point operations).

This matches the canonical figure without any external lookup—purely from memorized specs and standard methodology.

Try this prompt
Vote
2 / 35
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
Sherlock Dash Alpha

Sherlock Dash Alpha

Openrouter · Nov 2025svg
Try this prompt
Vote
3 / 35
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
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Sherlock Dash Alpha

Sherlock Dash Alpha

Openrouter · Nov 2025text
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Vote
4 / 35
04

Math Misconception Testreasoning

Tests an AI's understanding of number representation

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
Sherlock Dash Alpha

Sherlock Dash Alpha

Openrouter · Nov 2025text
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Vote
5 / 35
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
Sherlock Dash Alpha

Sherlock Dash Alpha

Openrouter · Nov 2025text
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Vote
6 / 35
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
Sherlock Dash Alpha

Sherlock Dash Alpha

Openrouter · Nov 2025svg
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Vote
Sponsored
7 / 35
07

Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation

Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware

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
Sherlock Dash Alpha

Sherlock Dash Alpha

Openrouter · Nov 2025svg
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Vote
8 / 35
08

Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation

Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability

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
Sherlock Dash Alpha

Sherlock Dash Alpha

Openrouter · Nov 2025text
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Vote
9 / 35
09

Realistic AI Interviewconversation

Tests an AI's ability to simulate personalities and predict future trends

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
Sherlock Dash Alpha

Sherlock Dash Alpha

Openrouter · Nov 2025text
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Vote
10 / 35
10

Satirical Fake News Headlineconversation

Tests an AI's humor and understanding of current events

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
Sherlock Dash Alpha

Sherlock Dash Alpha

Openrouter · Nov 2025text
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Vote
11 / 35
11

Character Voice Testconversation

Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices

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
Sherlock Dash Alpha

Sherlock Dash Alpha

Openrouter · Nov 2025text
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Try this prompt
Vote
12 / 35
12

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
Sherlock Dash Alpha

Sherlock Dash Alpha

Openrouter · Nov 2025website
Try this prompt
Vote

This matchup has more rounds

23+ 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 SonnetWinner
Sherlock Dash Alpha
Sherlock Dash AlphaRunner-up

Pick Claude 3.7 Sonnet. In 1 blind votes, Claude 3.7 Sonnet wins 100% of the time. That's not luck.

Clear winner
Writing DNA

Style Comparison

Similarity
81%

Sherlock Dash Alpha uses 1.7x more emoji

Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Sherlock Dash Alpha
62%Vocabulary72%
35wSentence Length11w
0.99Hedging0.12
1.2Bold5.2
4.3Lists4.7
0.00Emoji0.02
1.78Headings0.97
0.23Transitions0.32
Based on 13 + 14 text responses
vs

Ask them anything yourself

Claude 3.7 SonnetSherlock Dash Alpha

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
Claude 3.7 Sonnet 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
Llama 4 Maverick logo
Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs Llama 4 MaverickNew provider
Claude 3.7 Sonnet logoGPT-5 logo
Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs GPT-5New provider
Claude 3.7 Sonnet logoMiniMax M2.5 logo
Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs MiniMax M2.5New provider