Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index. Step 3.7 Flash costs 24× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic

50.5

Rank #47 Confirmed

Step 3.7 Flash StepFun

37.3

Rank #207 Reported

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 2 categories and Step 3.7 Flash in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 42.6 to 21.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 52.5% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 39.7% for Step 3.7 Flash.
  • Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.18 / $1.11 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.5.
  • Step 3.7 Flash accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 200K.
  • Step 3.7 Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.5 and Step 3.7 Flash specifications
Claude Opus 4.5Step 3.7 Flash
ProviderAnthropicStepFun
Noometry Index50.537.3
Released2025-11-012026-05-29
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K256K
Max output64K256K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.18
Output $ / M tokens$25$1.11
Results tracked695

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.8 (#27), Step 3.7 Flash: 40.0 (#150)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Step 3.7 Flash
ALE-Bench1,025694.12
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)76.8%—
LMArena WebDev1494—
SWE-bench Multilingual70.7%—
SciCode—40%
GSO26.5%—
WeirdML63.7%—
LMArena Coding1504—
AlgoTune1.77—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 47.3 (#12), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Step 3.7 Flash
Terminal-Bench63.1%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard77.5%—
GDPval45.5%—
Remote Labor Index3.8%—
τ²-bench Airline84%—
τ²-bench Banking24.7%—
τ²-bench Retail79.6%—
τ²-bench Telecom92.3%—
Cybench82%—
DeepResearch Bench54.8%—
OSWorld66.3%—
BALROG43.5%—
LMArena Search1180—
METR Time Horizons75%—
Vending-Bench 24,967—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 42.6 (#51), Step 3.7 Flash: 21.6 (#219)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Step 3.7 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)52.5%39.7%
ARC-AGI-237.6%—
SimpleBench62%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.2%—
ARC-AGI-180%—
CritPt—2.3%
Chess Puzzles12%—
EnigmaEval11.9%—
EBR-Bench14.3%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1476—
Mystery Game Puzzles22%—
DTBench89.9%—
LMCA44.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index150.09—
ForecastBench60.7—

Math Step 3.7 Flash leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 38.6 (#132), Step 3.7 Flash: 42.9 (#82)

Knowledge Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 56.5 (#44), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Step 3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond86%—
Humanity's Last Exam25.2%—
SimpleQA Verified45.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.9%—
LMArena Expert1487—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 31.4 (#107), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Step 3.7 Flash
GeoBench75%—
VPCT40%—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1462—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.3 (#47), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Step 3.7 Flash
LMArena Non-English1438—
LMArena Chinese1470—
LMArena French1471—
LMArena German1449—
LMArena Japanese1416—
LMArena Korean1424—
LMArena Russian1447—
LMArena Spanish1458—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 77.5 (#19), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Step 3.7 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1478—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 46.5 (#22), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Step 3.7 Flash
CL-bench21.1%—
LMArena Longer Query1480—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 68.1 (#28), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Step 3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1451—
LMArena Creative Writing1445—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1687—
LMArena Multi-Turn1466—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Step 3.7 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index. Step 3.7 Flash costs 24× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.18 per million input tokens and $1.11 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.5 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Step 3.7 Flash better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 54.8 versus 40.0 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Step 3.7 Flash does, with 256K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and Step 3.7 Flash share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.7 Flash has 5.

Related comparisons

Go deeper