Trinity Large Thinking vs Step 3.7 Flash
Updated October 21, 2026. 17 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Trinity Large Thinking has the edge where output tokens cost 1.4x less, and where what matters is AA Coding Index or SciCode, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 17
- Trinity Large Thinking only
- 35
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 1
- Like-for-like categories
- 6 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash leads, 19.5 against 10.8.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Trinity Large Thinking has a AA Agentic Index result, 1.0.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash leads, 1196 against 1137.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
No call
Both take 262K tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Trinity Large Thinking
Trinity Large Thinking $0.0006, Step 3.7 Flash $0.0008 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Trinity Large Thinking not benchmarked, Step 3.7 Flash not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- General, 23.3 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Trinity Large Thinking 38.0% against Step 3.7 Flash 73.7%, 35.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Trinity Large Thinking $0.80 against Step 3.7 Flash $1.15 per million output tokens, 1.4x apart.
- Context window
- Both take 262K tokens.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Trinity Large Thinking | Bars | Step 3.7 Flash | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 3 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 2 | ||
| Web design | 0 | 8 | ||
| General | 0 | 2 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 17 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
| Benchmark | Trinity Large Thinking | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1238 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| AA Coding Index | 25.8 | 39.6 | Step 3.7 Flash |
| SciCode | 40.6% | 43.9% | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 22.7% | 35.6% | Step 3.7 Flash |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 694.1 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1357 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1362 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1231 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1240 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Trinity Large Thinking | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 10.8 | 19.5 | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Trinity Large Thinking | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 1.0 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 90.1% | 98.5% | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Trinity Large Thinking | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 75.2% | 80.9% | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 15.8% | 21.4% | Step 3.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1342 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1359 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1356 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Trinity Large Thinking | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text: math | 1365 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1350 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Trinity Large Thinking | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | 57.9% | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 54.7% | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1355 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1349 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1345 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1329 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index08
| Benchmark | Trinity Large Thinking | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1137 | 1196 | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1045 | 1179 | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1079 | 1158 | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1098 | 1172 | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1082 | 1129 | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1117 | 1182 | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Design Arena: SVG | 1017 | 1085 | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | 1041 | 1152 | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Trinity Large Thinking | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 56.3% | 67.3% | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 38.0% | 73.7% | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 15.6% | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text | 1340 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1326 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1308 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1356 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1325 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1371 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1356 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1312 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1306 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1366 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1327 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1338 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1312 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1320 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1318 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1317 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1296 | Not measured | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Trinity Large Thinking | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Trinity Large Thinking costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Step 3.7 Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Step 3.7 Flash costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Arcee AI Trinity Large Thinking | StepFun Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Arcee AI | StepFun |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | April 1, 2026 | May 28, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.25 | $0.20 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.80 | $1.15 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 1 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Trinity Large Thinking better than Step 3.7 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Trinity Large Thinking has the edge where output tokens cost 1.4x less, and where what matters is AA Coding Index or SciCode, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Trinity Large Thinking or Step 3.7 Flash?
Trinity Large Thinking costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; Step 3.7 Flash costs $0.20 and $1.15. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Trinity Large Thinking or Step 3.7 Flash?
Neither: both take 262K tokens.
How many benchmarks is the Trinity Large Thinking vs Step 3.7 Flash comparison based on?
17 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Trinity Large Thinking's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Step 3.7 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.