GPT-5.2 Pro 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.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $168.00
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- 19.5
- Output $/M
- $1.15
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
GPT-5.2 Pro has the edge where the context window is larger, 400K against 262K tokens.
- Shared results
- 0
- GPT-5.2 Pro only
- 7
- 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Step 3.7 Flash has a AA Intelligence Index result, 19.5.
Directional only
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 Pro
GPT-5.2 Pro takes 400K tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Step 3.7 Flash
GPT-5.2 Pro $0.105, Step 3.7 Flash $0.0008 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-5.2 Pro not benchmarked, 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
- GPT-5.2 Pro $168.00 against Step 3.7 Flash $1.15 per million output tokens, 146.1x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-5.2 Pro 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.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 39.6 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 43.9% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 35.6% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 694.1 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 19.5 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.3 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2 Pro measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 98.5% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 80.9% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 21.4% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| ARC-AGI | 90.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2 Pro measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 54.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2 Pro measured |
| SimpleBench | 57.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2 Pro measured |
| Chess puzzles | 60.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2 Pro measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 74.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2 Pro measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 46.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2 Pro measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | 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 Pro | 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 | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 67.3% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 73.7% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| 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 Pro | 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 Pro | StepFun Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | StepFun |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | December 10, 2025 | May 28, 2026 |
| Context window | 400K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $21.00 | $0.20 |
| Output $/Mtok | $168.00 | $1.15 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-5.2 Pro better than Step 3.7 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. GPT-5.2 Pro has the edge where the context window is larger, 400K against 262K tokens.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 Pro or Step 3.7 Flash?
GPT-5.2 Pro costs $21.00 per million input tokens and $168.00 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-5.2 Pro or Step 3.7 Flash?
GPT-5.2 Pro, with 400K tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.2 Pro vs Step 3.7 Flash comparison based on?
0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-5.2 Pro'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.