Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4o vs Step 3.7 Flash

Step 3.7 Flash costs 8.7x less per output token than GPT-4o ($1.15 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 12 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-4oOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$10.00
0
Step 3.7 FlashStepFun
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.15
12
vs boards won of 12 shared

GPT-4o or Step 3.7 Flash: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick GPT-4o for work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.

Shared results
12
GPT-4o only
15
Step 3.7 Flash only
6
Like-for-like categories
5 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

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
GPT-4o not benchmarked, Step 3.7 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 73.4 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: GPT-4o 25.1% against Step 3.7 Flash 98.5%, 73.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4o $10.00 against Step 3.7 Flash $1.15 per million output tokens, 8.7x apart.
Context window
GPT-4o takes 128K 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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGPT-4oBarsStep 3.7 FlashTies
Coding01
Agentic work01
Reasoning02
Web design06
General02
All shared boards012
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4o and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4oStep 3.7 FlashLeader
SWE-bench Verified38.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
SWE-bench Lite38.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
SWE-bench (full test set)18.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
SWE-bench Multimodal30.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured39.6Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)30.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
SciCodeNot measured43.9%Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)8.3%35.6%Step 3.7 Flash
ALE-BenchNot measured694.1Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
SciCode1.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o 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 GPT-4o and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4oStep 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 workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4o and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4oStep 3.7 FlashLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom25.1%98.5%Step 3.7 Flash
GDPval9.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4o and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4oStep 3.7 FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)54.3%80.9%Step 3.7 Flash
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)2.4%21.4%Step 3.7 Flash
ARC-AGI4.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
ARC-AGI-20.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-4o and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4oStep 3.7 FlashLeader
AA Math Index6.0Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)6.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4o and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4oStep 3.7 FlashLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)74.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
MMLU88.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4o and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4oStep 3.7 FlashLeader
Design Arena: websites8311196Step 3.7 Flash
Design Arena: UI components8851179Step 3.7 Flash
Design Arena: game dev9061158Step 3.7 Flash
Design Arena: data viz8581172Step 3.7 Flash
Design Arena: 3D8691129Step 3.7 Flash
Design Arena: all code categories8611182Step 3.7 Flash
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
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
General benchmarks for GPT-4o and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4oStep 3.7 FlashLeader
IFBench34.3%67.3%Step 3.7 Flash
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)49.3%73.7%Step 3.7 Flash
DTBench64.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
LMCA16.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4o and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4oStep 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

GPT-4o$0.0075Fits 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

GPT-4o$0.155Fits 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

GPT-4o$0.600Exceeds the context window
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 GPT-4o and Step 3.7 Flash
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4oStepFun Step 3.7 Flash
MakerOpenAIStepFun
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedMay 13, 2024May 28, 2026
Context window128K262K
Input $/Mtok$2.50$0.20
Output $/Mtok$10.00$1.15
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4o better than Step 3.7 Flash for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-4o for work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4o or Step 3.7 Flash?

GPT-4o costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 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, GPT-4o or Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o vs Step 3.7 Flash comparison based on?

12 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-4o's coding index rests on 0 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