# Llama 2-70B vs Step 3.7 Flash

> Step 3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-2-70b-vs-step-3-7-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in math, where Step 3.7 Flash leads 42.9 to 8.1.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 2-70B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | StepFun |
| Noometry Index | 24.4 | 37.3 |
| Rank | 349 | 207 |
| Context | — | 256K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.18 |
| Output $/M | — | $1.11 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 2-70B: 31.4 (#286)
- Step 3.7 Flash: 40.0 (#150)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 40% |
| LMArena Coding | 1079 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 694.12 |

## Reasoning

- Llama 2-70B: 14.4 (#325)
- Step 3.7 Flash: 21.6 (#219)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 39.7% |
| CritPt | — | 2.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1073 | — |
| DTBench | 41.6% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 64.9% | — |
| CommonsenseQA 2.0 | 50% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 113.79 | — |
| ForecastBench | 51.4 | — |
| HellaSwag | 85.3% | — |
| LAMBADA | 78.9% | — |
| PIQA | 82.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 80.2% | — |

## Math

- Llama 2-70B: 8.1 (#326)
- Step 3.7 Flash: 42.9 (#82)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 68.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1091 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 3.3% | — |
| GSM8K | 69.6% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#310)
- Step 3.7 Flash: —

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 26.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1039 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 78.3% | — |
| BoolQ | 88.6% | — |
| MMLU | 69.9% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 60.2% | — |
| TriviaQA | 87.6% | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 2-70B: 27.7 (#274)
- Step 3.7 Flash: —

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1045 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 995 | — |
| LMArena French | 1090 | — |
| LMArena German | 1041 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 927 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 964 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1083 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1143 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 2-70B: 54.9 (#278)
- Step 3.7 Flash: —

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1071 | — |

## Long Context

- Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#270)
- Step 3.7 Flash: —

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1062 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#279)
- Step 3.7 Flash: —

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1115 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1075 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1088 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 2-70B better than Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Llama 2-70B or Step 3.7 Flash better for coding?

Step 3.7 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 2-70B and Step 3.7 Flash share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.7 Flash has 5.