Model comparison

Llama 3.2 1B vs Step 3.7 Flash

Step 3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 5.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Step 3.7 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 1B Meta

20.1

Rank #354 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 10.4.
  • Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.18 / $1.11 for Step 3.7 Flash.
  • Step 3.7 Flash accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 60K.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 1B and Step 3.7 Flash specifications
Llama 3.2 1BStep 3.7 Flash
ProviderMetaStepFun
Noometry Index20.137.3
Released2024-09-242026-05-29
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window60K256K
Max output54K256K
Input $ / M tokens$0.027$0.18
Output $ / M tokens$0.20$1.11
Results tracked225

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

Category by category

Coding Step 3.7 Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338), Step 3.7 Flash: 40.0 (#150)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.7 Flash
SciCode—40%
BigCodeBench Instruct8.2%—
LMArena Coding1070—
BigCodeBench Complete11.3%—
ALE-Bench—694.12

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.7 Flash
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard10.8%—
BALROG6.6%—

Reasoning Step 3.7 Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), Step 3.7 Flash: 21.6 (#219)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.7 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)—39.7%
CritPt—2.3%
Chess Puzzles0%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1044—
Epoch Capabilities Index101.99—

Math Step 3.7 Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), Step 3.7 Flash: 42.9 (#82)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.7 Flash
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—68.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250.6%—
LMArena Math1086—

Knowledge Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond23.9%—
LMArena Expert1007—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Non-English973—
LMArena Chinese959—
LMArena German1014—
LMArena Russian941—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1031—

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1050—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1055—
LMArena Creative Writing1033—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing200—
LMArena Multi-Turn1030—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 5.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Step 3.7 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or Step 3.7 Flash?

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Step 3.7 Flash lists at $0.18 and $1.11.

Is Llama 3.2 1B or Step 3.7 Flash better for coding?

Step 3.7 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Step 3.7 Flash does, with 256K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Step 3.7 Flash share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.7 Flash has 5.

Related comparisons

Go deeper