Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash

Step 3.7 Flash leads Llama 3.2 3B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 19.5 to 5.7, and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs 3.5x less per output token ($0.3325 vs $1.15 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 6 benchmarks have a result for both.

Llama 3.2 3B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.3325
0
Step 3.7 FlashStepFun
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.15
6
vs boards won of 6 shared

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct or Step 3.7 Flash: which to pick

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

Pick Llama 3.2 3B Instruct for output tokens 3.5x cheaper ($0.3325 vs $1.15 per million) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index or τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.

Shared results
6
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct only
29
Step 3.7 Flash only
12
Like-for-like categories
4 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
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct not benchmarked, Step 3.7 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 77.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Llama 3.2 3B Instruct 21.1% against Step 3.7 Flash 98.5%, 77.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct $0.3325 against Step 3.7 Flash $1.15 per million output tokens, 3.5x apart.
Context window
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct takes 131K 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
CategoryLlama 3.2 3B InstructBarsStep 3.7 FlashTies
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning02
General02
All shared boards06
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index7 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructStep 3.7 FlashLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured39.6Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)8.3%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct 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
LMArena Text: coding1098Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1103Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructStep 3.7 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index5.719.5Step 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
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructStep 3.7 FlashLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom21.1%98.5%Step 3.7 Flash
BALROG10.1%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)21.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructStep 3.7 FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)25.5%80.9%Step 3.7 Flash
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)5.3%21.4%Step 3.7 Flash
LMArena Text: hard prompts1095Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: expert1090Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1141Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructStep 3.7 FlashLeader
AA Math Index3.3Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)3.3%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math1126Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1128Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructStep 3.7 FlashLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)34.7%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science1106Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1104Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1115Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1074Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructStep 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
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
General benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructStep 3.7 FlashLeader
IFBench26.2%67.3%Step 3.7 Flash
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)4.3%73.7%Step 3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1110Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1089Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1094Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: English1180Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: non-English1019Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1017Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: German1056Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Russian949Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1105Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1100Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1096Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1083Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructStep 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

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct$0.0002Fits in one request
Step 3.7 Flash$0.0008Fits in one request

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct$0.0035Fits in one request
Step 3.7 Flash$0.013Fits in one request

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct$0.013Exceeds the context window
Step 3.7 Flash$0.051Fits in one request

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct 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 Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Step 3.7 Flash
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.2 3B InstructStepFun Step 3.7 Flash
MakerMeta LlamaStepFun
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 25, 2024May 28, 2026
Context window131K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.0505$0.20
Output $/Mtok$0.3325$1.15
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama 3.2 3B Instruct better than Step 3.7 Flash for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 3.2 3B Instruct for output tokens 3.5x cheaper ($0.3325 vs $1.15 per million) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index or τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct or Step 3.7 Flash?

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs $0.0505 per million input tokens and $0.3325 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, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct or Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.2 3B Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash comparison based on?

6 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Llama 3.2 3B Instruct'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