Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Sonnet 5
94
Step 3.7 Flash
67
Pick Claude Sonnet 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+15.9 difference
Coding
+6.9 difference
Claude Sonnet 5
Step 3.7 Flash
$3 / $15
$0.2 / $1.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
256K
Pick Claude Sonnet 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Sonnet 5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 94 to 67. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Sonnet 5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 81.8 against 65.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 80.4% to 59.5%.
Claude Sonnet 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. That is roughly 13.0x on output cost alone. Claude Sonnet 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
Claude Sonnet 5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 94 to 67. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 80.4% and 59.5%.
Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 63.2 versus 56.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.8 versus 65.9. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.