Model comparison
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Haiku 4.5 estimated; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Step 3.7 Flash share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 29 to Step 3.7 Flash.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Haiku 4.5 only
- 4
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 29
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Step 3.7 Flash is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 57 to 53. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Haiku 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. That is roughly 4.3x on output cost alone. Step 3.7 Flash is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Haiku 4.5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Step 3.7 Flash gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Claude Haiku 4.5.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Δ | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Haiku 4.573.3 | Margin← 17.0 | Step 3.7 Flash56.3 |
| Agentic | Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 Flash66.4 |
| Math | Claude Haiku 4.54.9 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Step 3.7 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 output | Step 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 output | Step 3.7 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5200K | Step 3.7 Flash256K | Step 3.7 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| JobBenchSource | 16.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 47.2% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 51.57% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.5% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 98.5% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1017 | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Haiku 4.5 wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.3% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 56.3% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 39.6% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 35.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 40.0% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 80.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -37.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 25.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 67.3% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 57 to 53.
Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.3 versus 56.3. Step 3.7 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.