Model comparison
Grok Code Fast 1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: Grok Code Fast 1 supported; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok Code Fast 1 and Step 3.7 Flash share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Grok Code Fast 1; 18 to Step 3.7 Flash.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- Grok Code Fast 1 only
- 1
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 18
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 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
Step 3.7 Flash is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 57 to 41. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Grok Code Fast 1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.20 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. Step 3.7 Flash is the reasoning model in the pair, while Grok Code Fast 1 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.
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 | Grok Code Fast 1 | Δ | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Grok Code Fast 170.8 | Margin← 14.5 | Step 3.7 Flash56.3 |
| Agentic | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 Flash66.4 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Grok Code Fast 1 | Step 3.7 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok Code Fast 1$0.2 input / $1.5 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 | Grok Code Fast 1172 tok/s | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok Code Fast 12.81 s | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok Code Fast 1256K | Step 3.7 Flash256K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 75.7% | 98.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| 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 |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1017 | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
CodingGrok Code Fast 1 wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 70.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 17.4% | 35.6% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 36.2% | 40.0% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 56.3% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 39.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 21.6% | 30.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 72.7% | 80.9% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-HLESource | 7.5% | 19.9% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -36.0% | -37.5% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 23.8% | 25.4% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 78.5% | 84.4% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 41.4% | 67.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Grok Code Fast 1 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 57 to 41.
Which is better for coding, Grok Code Fast 1 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 56.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard 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.