Model Comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
vs. Step 3.7 Flash
Comparing 2 AI models · 7 benchmarks · Anthropic, StepFun
Recommended Pick
St Step 3.7 Flash 11 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Step 3.7 Flash
100.0 value score
47.8 reasoning / $0.44/1M
Lowest Price
Step 3.7 Flash
$0.20/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Step 3.7 Flash
47.8 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
46.4 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Step 3.7 Flash has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Step 3.7 Flash is 18.8x cheaper on input tokens than Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort).
Speed gap
Step 3.7 Flash generates about 2.4x as many tokens per second as Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort).
Reasoning gap
Step 3.7 Flash leads Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) by 2.0 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) leads Step 3.7 Flash by 9.3 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Step 3.7 Flash
StepFun
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | An Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) | Top Pick St Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $3.75/1M | $0.20/1M |
| Output Cost | $15.00/1M | $1.15/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $6.56/1M | $0.44/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | StepFun |
| Release Date | Feb 17, 2026 | May 29, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 59.2 tok/s | 142.3 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1052ms | 1514ms |
| Latency | 1052ms | 15570ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 6.4 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 45.8 | 47.8 |
| Intelligence | 44.4 | 42.6 |
| Coding | 46.4 | 37.1 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 79.9% | 80.9% |
| HLE | 13.2% | 19.9% |
| SciCode | 46.9% | 40.0% |
| LCR | 57.7% | 63.7% |
| IFBench | 41.2% | 67.3% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 79.5% | 98.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 46.2% | 35.6% |
Key Takeaways
Step 3.7 Flash offers the best value at $0.20/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Step 3.7 Flash has the strongest reasoning profile with a 47.8 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) reaches a 46.4 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
- Code generation
- Software development
Step 3.7 Flash
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
