Model comparison

Llama 3.1-70B vs Step 3.7 Flash

Step 3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.1-70B Meta

29.6

Rank #308 Confirmed

Step 3.7 Flash StepFun

37.3

Rank #207 Reported

Summary

  • The widest gap is in math, where Step 3.7 Flash leads 42.9 to 13.5.
  • Both cost about the same: $0.40 input and $0.40 output per million tokens.
  • Step 3.7 Flash accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Llama 3.1-70B and Step 3.7 Flash specifications
Llama 3.1-70BStep 3.7 Flash
ProviderMetaStepFun
Noometry Index29.637.3
Released2024-07-232026-05-29
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K256K
Max output4K256K
Input $ / M tokens$0.40$0.18
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$1.11
Results tracked355

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

Category by category

Coding Step 3.7 Flash leads

Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296), Step 3.7 Flash: 40.0 (#150)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BStep 3.7 Flash
SciCode—40%
WeirdML9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct46.1%—
LMArena Coding1260—
BigCodeBench Complete54.8%—
ALE-Bench—694.12

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 25.1 (#112), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BStep 3.7 Flash
TheAgentCompany6.9%—
BALROG27.9%—

Reasoning Too close to call

Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220), Step 3.7 Flash: 21.6 (#219)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BStep 3.7 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)—39.7%
CritPt—2.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts1241—
DTBench60%—
LMCA14.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index125.92—

Math Step 3.7 Flash leads

Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304), Step 3.7 Flash: 42.9 (#82)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BStep 3.7 Flash
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—68.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20253.6%—
Omni-MATH21%—
LMArena Math1252—
MATH Level 536.7%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BStep 3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond44.2%—
MMLU-Pro65.3%—
GPQA (HELM)42.6%—
LMArena Expert1209—
MMLU80.1%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Non-English1219—
LMArena Chinese1215—
LMArena French1261—
LMArena German1222—
LMArena Japanese1132—
LMArena Korean1140—
LMArena Russian1234—
LMArena Spanish1253—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BStep 3.7 Flash
IFEval82.1%—
LMArena Instruction Following1231—

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1241—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1261—
LMArena Creative Writing1232—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing784—
WildBench75.8%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1256—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.1-70B better than Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1-70B or Step 3.7 Flash?

Llama 3.1-70B is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Step 3.7 Flash lists at $0.18 and $1.11.

Is Llama 3.1-70B or Step 3.7 Flash better for coding?

Step 3.7 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 30.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Step 3.7 Flash does, with 256K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-70B and Step 3.7 Flash share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.7 Flash has 5.

Related comparisons

Go deeper