Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Laguna XS.2
37
Step 3.7 Flash
72
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Laguna XS.2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+30.2 difference
Coding
+1.2 difference
Laguna XS.2
Step 3.7 Flash
$0 / $0
$0.2 / $1.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
131K
256K
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Laguna XS.2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Step 3.7 Flash is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 72 to 37. 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 35.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 35.7% to 59.5%.
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 Laguna XS.2. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Step 3.7 Flash gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 131K for Laguna XS.2.
Step 3.7 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 37. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 35.7% and 59.5%.
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 56.3 versus 55.1. 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 35.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.