Model Comparison
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct
vs. Step 3.7 Flash
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · ByteDance Seed, StepFun
Recommended Pick
St Step 3.7 Flash 13 metric wins Strongest on: Input price, Throughput, TTFT
Best Value
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct
100.0 value score
55.3 reasoning / $0.30/1M
Lowest Price
Step 3.7 Flash
$0.20/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct
55.3 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Step 3.7 Flash
37.1 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
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Speed gap
Step 3.7 Flash generates about 9.6x as many tokens per second as Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct.
Reasoning gap
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct leads Step 3.7 Flash by 7.5 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Step 3.7 Flash leads Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct by 20.4 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Step 3.7 Flash wins 13 measurable categories, including Input price, Throughput, TTFT, Latency.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct
ByteDance Seed
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 | By Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct | Top Pick St Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.21/1M | $0.20/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.57/1M | $1.15/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.30/1M | $0.44/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | ByteDance Seed | StepFun |
| Release Date | Aug 20, 2025 | May 29, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 38.0 tok/s | 365.0 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1727ms | 784ms |
| Latency | 54405ms | 6263ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 59.3 |
| Reasoning Score | 55.3 | 47.8 |
| Intelligence | 25.2 | 42.6 |
| Coding | 16.7 | 37.1 |
| Math | 84.7 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 72.6% | 80.9% |
| MMLU Pro | 81.5% | — |
| HLE | 9.1% | 19.9% |
| LiveCodeBench | 76.5% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 84.7% | — |
| SciCode | 36.5% | 40.0% |
| LCR | 57.7% | 63.7% |
| IFBench | 41.9% | 67.3% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 49.4% | 98.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 6.8% | 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.
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct has the strongest reasoning profile with a 55.3 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Step 3.7 Flash reaches a 37.1 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
Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Step 3.7 Flash
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Code generation
- Software development
