Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Grok 4.3
75
Step 3.7 Flash
72
Pick Grok 4.3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+9.0 difference
Grok 4.3
Step 3.7 Flash
$1.25 / $2.5
$0.2 / $1.15
209 t/s
N/A
12.36s
N/A
1M
256K
Pick Grok 4.3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Grok 4.3 has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 75 versus 72. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Grok 4.3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.25 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. Grok 4.3 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
Grok 4.3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 75 to 72.
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 56.3 versus 47.3. Grok 4.3 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.