Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Ember-1 vs Step 3.7 Flash

Updated October 21, 2026. 0 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Ember-1Fireworks
Coding
52.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$15.00
Step 3.7 FlashStepFun
Coding
No data
Overall
19.5
Output $/M
$1.15
vs $15.00 vs $1.15 per 1M output tokens. Step 3.7 Flash is 13.0x cheaper.

Decision reading

Only Ember-1 has a coding score, 52.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Step 3.7 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Step 3.7 Flash has the edge where output tokens cost 13.0x less.

Shared results
0
Ember-1 only
14
Step 3.7 Flash only
18
Like-for-like categories
0 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.

At a glance

Coding index
Ember-1 52.6 from 2 benchmarks, Step 3.7 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
No category has a result for both models.
Widest single gap
No benchmark has a result for both models.
Output price
Ember-1 $15.00 against Step 3.7 Flash $1.15 per million output tokens, 13.0x apart.
Context window
Ember-1 takes 1.05M tokens, Step 3.7 Flash 262K.

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.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index9 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Ember-1 and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkEmber-1Step 3.7 FlashLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured39.6Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)20.7%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)83.9%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)32.5%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
IOI (Vals AI)46.3%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)69.5%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
SciCodeNot measured43.9%Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured35.6%Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
ALE-BenchNot measured694.1Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Ember-1 and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkEmber-1Step 3.7 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured19.5Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Ember-1 and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkEmber-1Step 3.7 FlashLeader
Finance Agent (Vals AI)51.8%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)31.1%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)44.7%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)63.4%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)67.0%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)5.7%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Vals Science Index31.8%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured98.5%Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Ember-1 and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkEmber-1Step 3.7 FlashLeader
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)22.5%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured80.9%Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured21.4%Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Ember-1 and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkEmber-1Step 3.7 FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 13 boards here
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Ember-1 and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkEmber-1Step 3.7 FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 17 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Ember-1 and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkEmber-1Step 3.7 FlashLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1196Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1179Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1158Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1172Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1129Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1182Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1085Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1152Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Ember-1 and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkEmber-1Step 3.7 FlashLeader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)66.2%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
IFBenchNot measured67.3%Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured73.7%Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 43 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Ember-1 and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkEmber-1Step 3.7 FlashLeader
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

Ember-1$0.011Fits in one request
Step 3.7 Flash$0.0008Fits in one request

Step 3.7 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Ember-1$0.195Fits in one request
Step 3.7 Flash$0.013Fits in one request

Step 3.7 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Ember-1$0.750Fits in one request
Step 3.7 Flash$0.051Fits in one request

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.

Specifications of Ember-1 and Step 3.7 Flash
SpecificationFireworks Ember-1StepFun Step 3.7 Flash
MakerFireworksStepFun
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 24, 2026May 28, 2026
Context window1.05M262K
Input $/Mtok$3.00$0.20
Output $/Mtok$15.00$1.15
Coding index52.6Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Ember-1 better than Step 3.7 Flash for coding?

Only Ember-1 has a coding score, 52.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Step 3.7 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Step 3.7 Flash has the edge where output tokens cost 13.0x less.

Which is cheaper, Ember-1 or Step 3.7 Flash?

Ember-1 costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 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, Ember-1 or Step 3.7 Flash?

Ember-1, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the Ember-1 vs Step 3.7 Flash comparison based on?

0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Ember-1's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Step 3.7 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next