Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Step 3.7 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #8; Step 3.7 Flash unranked
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.6 supported; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and Step 3.7 Flash share 20 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 28 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 10 to Step 3.7 Flash.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 20
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 28
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 10
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 4.6 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 84 to 57. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 68.1 against 56.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 83.7% to 75.8%.
Claude Opus 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. That is roughly 21.7x on output cost alone. Step 3.7 Flash is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.6 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. Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
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 Opus 4.6 | Δ | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.668.1 | Margin← 11.8 | Step 3.7 Flash56.3 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.673.0 | Margin← 6.6 | Step 3.7 Flash66.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.669.2 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.636.3 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.677.3 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 83.7%B 75.8%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 7.9BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 83.7%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 75.8%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 65.4%B 59.5%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 5.9Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 59.5%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 53.4%B 56.3%Winner: Step 3.7 FlashΔ 2.9SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53.4%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 56.3%. Step 3.7 Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | Step 3.7 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 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 Opus 4.640 tok/s | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.61.78 s | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.61M | Step 3.7 Flash256K | Claude Opus 4.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 4.6 wins16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.4% | 59.5% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.7% | 75.8% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 84.8% | 98.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 70.4% | 67.1% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 73.7% | 92.8% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| CyberGymSource | 66.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 61.85% | 51.57% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 19.9% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 36.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 47.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.5% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1017 | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.6 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 70.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 53.4% | 56.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 65.3% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 84.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 57.57% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 48.5% | 35.6% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.7% | 40.0% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| FrontierCodeSource | 26.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 39.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 82% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 53% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 40% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 14.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 52.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 37.8% | 30.3% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.0% | 80.9% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 18.6% | 19.9% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.5% | -37.5% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.2% | 25.4% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 76.0% | 84.4% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 77.3% | — | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | 51.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 83.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 64.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1606 | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 72.5% | 75.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1330 | 1218 | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 79.2% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 44.6% | 67.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 84 to 57. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 83.7% and 75.8%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.1 versus 56.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73 versus 66.4. Inside this category, DeepSearchQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.