Model comparison
Composer 2.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: Composer 2.5 not scored; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Composer 2.5 and Step 3.7 Flash share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Composer 2.5; 28 to Step 3.7 Flash.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Composer 2.5 only
- 3
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 28
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Composer 2.5 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 need the larger 256K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Composer 2.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 63 to 57. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Composer 2.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 69.3 against 66.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 69.3% to 59.5%.
Composer 2.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. That is roughly 2.2x on output cost alone. Step 3.7 Flash gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Composer 2.5.
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 | Composer 2.5 | Δ | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Composer 2.569.3 | Margin← 2.9 | Step 3.7 Flash66.4 |
| Coding | Composer 2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 Flash56.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 69.3%B 59.5%Winner: Composer 2.5Δ 9.8Terminal-Bench 2.0: Composer 2.5 scored 69.3%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 59.5%. Composer 2.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Composer 2.5 | Step 3.7 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Composer 2.5$0.5 input / $2.5 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 | Composer 2.5Not available | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Composer 2.5Not available | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Composer 2.5200K | Step 3.7 Flash256K | Step 3.7 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticComposer 2.5 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2.5 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.3% | 59.5% | Composer 2.5 leads |
| 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 |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2.5 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.3% | 59.5% | Composer 2.5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 79.8% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 63.2% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 56.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 56.3% | 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 | Composer 2.5 | 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 |
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2.5 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 67.3% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Composer 2.5 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Composer 2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 63 to 57. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 69.3% and 59.5%.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2.5 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Composer 2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.3 versus 66.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.