Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Saba vs Step 5 Preview

Updated October 21, 2026. 2 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

SabaMistral AI
Coding
No data
Overall
6.5
Output $/M
$0.60
0
Step 5 PreviewStepFun
Coding
61.1
Overall
43.7
Output $/M
$2.70
2
vs boards won of 2 shared

Decision reading

Only Step 5 Preview has a coding score, 61.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Saba has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Saba has the edge where output tokens cost 4.5x less.

Shared results
2
Saba only
2
Step 5 Preview only
59
Like-for-like categories
2 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
Saba not benchmarked, Step 5 Preview 61.1 from 4 benchmarks.
Widest category
Reasoning, 42.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run): Saba 4.3% against Step 5 Preview 46.5%, 42.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Saba $0.60 against Step 5 Preview $2.70 per million output tokens, 4.5x apart.
Context window
Saba takes 33K tokens, Step 5 Preview 1.05M.

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
CategorySabaBarsStep 5 PreviewTies
Intelligence01
Reasoning01
All shared boards02
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index13 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Saba and Step 5 Preview
BenchmarkSabaStep 5 PreviewLeader
LiveBench codingNot measured85.6%Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1567Only Step 5 Preview measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured31.8%Only Step 5 Preview measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured70.4%Only Step 5 Preview measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured39.0%Only Step 5 Preview measured
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured38.1%Only Step 5 Preview measured
SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI)Not measured40.8%Only Step 5 Preview measured
SciCodeNot measured58.9%Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1485Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1473Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1583Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1556Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1550Only Step 5 Preview measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Saba and Step 5 Preview
BenchmarkSabaStep 5 PreviewLeader
AA Intelligence Index6.543.7Step 5 Preview
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Saba and Step 5 Preview
BenchmarkSabaStep 5 PreviewLeader
LiveBench researchNot measured72.8%Only Step 5 Preview measured
LiveBench browserNot measured24.0%Only Step 5 Preview measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured27.5%Only Step 5 Preview measured
SREBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.4%Only Step 5 Preview measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured50.7%Only Step 5 Preview measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured27.3%Only Step 5 Preview measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured40.4%Only Step 5 Preview measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured57.1%Only Step 5 Preview measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)Not measured67.4%Only Step 5 Preview measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured2.9%Only Step 5 Preview measured
Vals Science IndexNot measured29.6%Only Step 5 Preview measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Reasoning benchmarks for Saba and Step 5 Preview
BenchmarkSabaStep 5 PreviewLeader
LiveBench reasoningNot measured83.8%Only Step 5 Preview measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)Not measured18.5%Only Step 5 Preview measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)42.4%Not measuredOnly Saba measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.3%46.5%Step 5 Preview
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1461Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1485Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1454Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1308Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1265Only Step 5 Preview measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Saba and Step 5 Preview
BenchmarkSabaStep 5 PreviewLeader
ProofBenchNot measured42.0%Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1458Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1460Only Step 5 Preview measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Saba and Step 5 Preview
BenchmarkSabaStep 5 PreviewLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)61.1%Not measuredOnly Saba measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1454Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1439Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1437Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1435Only Step 5 Preview measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Saba and Step 5 Preview
BenchmarkSabaStep 5 PreviewLeader
LiveBench designNot measured76.9%Only Step 5 Preview measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Saba and Step 5 Preview
BenchmarkSabaStep 5 PreviewLeader
LiveBench data analysisNot measured63.5%Only Step 5 Preview measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured58.1%Only Step 5 Preview measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured88.3%Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena TextNot measured1440Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1438Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1409Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena VisionNot measured1265Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1447Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1428Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1500Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1383Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1438Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1441Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1433Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1437Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1449Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1425Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1412Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1290Only Step 5 Preview measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1282Only Step 5 Preview measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Saba and Step 5 Preview
BenchmarkSabaStep 5 PreviewLeader
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

Saba$0.0005Fits in one request
Step 5 Preview$0.0024Fits in one request

Saba costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Saba$0.012Exceeds the context window
Step 5 Preview$0.058Fits in one request

Saba costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Saba$0.046Exceeds the context window
Step 5 Preview$0.227Fits in one request

Saba 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 Saba and Step 5 Preview
SpecificationMistral SabaStepFun Step 5 Preview
MakerMistral AIStepFun
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedFebruary 17, 2025October 8, 2026
Context window33K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.20$1.00
Output $/Mtok$0.60$2.70
Coding indexNot benchmarked61.1
Independent measurements behind it04
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Saba better than Step 5 Preview for coding?

Only Step 5 Preview has a coding score, 61.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Saba has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Saba has the edge where output tokens cost 4.5x less.

Which is cheaper, Saba or Step 5 Preview?

Saba costs $0.20 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Step 5 Preview costs $1.00 and $2.70. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Saba or Step 5 Preview?

Step 5 Preview, with 1.05M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks is the Saba vs Step 5 Preview comparison based on?

2 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Saba's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Step 5 Preview's on 4. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next