Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Hy3 Preview
60
Step 3.7 Flash
72
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Hy3 Preview only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+11.5 difference
Coding
+3.7 difference
Hy3 Preview
Step 3.7 Flash
$0 / $0
$0.2 / $1.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
256K
256K
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Hy3 Preview only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Step 3.7 Flash is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 72 to 60. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Step 3.7 Flash's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 65.9 against 54.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 54.4% to 59.5%. Hy3 Preview does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Step 3.7 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Hy3 Preview. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone.
Step 3.7 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 60. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 54.4% and 59.5%.
Hy3 Preview has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 60 versus 56.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.9 versus 54.4. Inside this category, Gert Labs 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.