Skip to main content

Model comparison

DeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking) vs Step 3.7 Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

57.88/100
Margin
7.1pts
← winning
50.76/100
0 category wins0 category wins

BenchAlign evidence: DeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking) estimated; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking) and Step 3.7 Flash share 1 comparable benchmark result. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to DeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking); 29 to Step 3.7 Flash.

Updated July 16, 2026
Shared results
1
DeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking) only
1
Step 3.7 Flash only
29
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for DeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking) and Step 3.7 Flash is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

DeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking) is priced at $0.55 input / $2.19 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. Step 3.7 Flash has the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for DeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking).

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 scores and score margins for DeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking) and Step 3.7 Flash
CategoryDeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking)ΔStep 3.7 Flash
AgenticDeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking)Not measuredMarginNo overlapStep 3.7 Flash66.4
CodingDeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking)Not measuredMarginNo overlapStep 3.7 Flash56.3

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricDeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking)Step 3.7 FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking)$0.55 input / $2.19 outputStep 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 outputStep 3.7 Flash has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking)Not availableStep 3.7 FlashNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking)Not availableStep 3.7 FlashNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking)128KStep 3.7 Flash256KStep 3.7 Flash lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking)Step 3.7 FlashResult
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 1017Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 14.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking)Step 3.7 FlashResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 5.11%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
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking)Step 3.7 FlashResult
AA-LCRSource 63.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource 2.3%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking)Step 3.7 FlashResult
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
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking)Step 3.7 FlashResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12081218Step 3.7 Flash leads
SimpleVQASource 79.2%Not comparable
V*Source 95.3%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 75.3%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking)Step 3.7 FlashResult
AA-IFBenchSource 67.3%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare DeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking) and Step 3.7 Flash on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

What data is available for DeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking) and Step 3.7 Flash today?

DeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking): $0.55 input / $2.19 output per 1M tokens Step 3.7 Flash: $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 16, 2026

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.