GPT-5.2-Codex vs Step 3.7 Flash
Updated October 21, 2026. 8 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, 45.4 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 12.2x less, and where the benchmark that matters is τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 8
- GPT-5.2-Codex only
- 14
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 10
- Like-for-like categories
- 5 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
Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GPT-5.2-Codex
GPT-5.2-Codex leads, 28.5 against 19.5.
Same board, both measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Step 3.7 Flash has a Design Arena: websites result, 1196.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-5.2-Codex
GPT-5.2-Codex takes 400K tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Step 3.7 Flash
GPT-5.2-Codex $0.0088, Step 3.7 Flash $0.0008 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only GPT-5.2-Codex has the number, $0.43.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-5.2-Codex 45.4 from 3 benchmarks, Step 3.7 Flash not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Reasoning, 11.6 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- ALE-Bench: GPT-5.2-Codex 1299.9 against Step 3.7 Flash 694.1, 20.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-5.2-Codex $14.00 against Step 3.7 Flash $1.15 per million output tokens, 12.2x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-5.2-Codex takes 400K 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.
| Category | GPT-5.2-Codex | Bars | Step 3.7 Flash | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 2 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 2 | 0 | ||
| General | 2 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 7 | 1 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 72.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 66.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| LMArena WebDev | 1339 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 39.6 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 88.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 72.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 37.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 43.9% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 37.1% | 35.6% | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| Terminal-Bench | 66.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| ALE-Bench | 1299.9 | 694.1 | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1329 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1348 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 28.5 | 19.5 | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| 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 | GPT-5.2-Codex | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | 1051 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | 993 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1089 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | 1176 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Godot games | 1142 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 92.1% | 98.5% | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 89.9% | 80.9% | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 35.7% | 21.4% | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 17 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1196 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1179 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1158 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | Not measured | 1172 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | Not measured | 1129 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1182 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: SVG | Not measured | 1085 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | Not measured | 1152 | Only 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 index20
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 77.6% | 67.3% | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 82.3% | 73.7% | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| Neither model has a result on the other 44 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | 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
Step 3.7 Flash 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 | OpenAI GPT-5.2-Codex | StepFun Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | StepFun |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | January 14, 2026 | May 28, 2026 |
| Context window | 400K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.75 | $0.20 |
| Output $/Mtok | $14.00 | $1.15 |
| Coding index | 45.4 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 3 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.43 | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-5.2-Codex better than Step 3.7 Flash for coding?
Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, 45.4 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 12.2x less, and where the benchmark that matters is τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2-Codex or Step 3.7 Flash?
GPT-5.2-Codex costs $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens; Step 3.7 Flash costs $0.20 and $1.15. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.2-Codex only.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.2-Codex or Step 3.7 Flash?
GPT-5.2-Codex, with 400K tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.2-Codex vs Step 3.7 Flash comparison based on?
8 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-5.2-Codex's coding index rests on 3 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.