Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
o3-mini
56
Step 3.7 Flash
72
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Coding
+7.0 difference
o3-mini
Step 3.7 Flash
$1.1 / $4.4
$0.2 / $1.15
160 t/s
N/A
7.12s
N/A
200K
256K
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Step 3.7 Flash is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 72 to 56. 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 coding, where it averages 56.3 against 49.3.
o3-mini is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.10 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. That is roughly 3.8x on output cost alone. Step 3.7 Flash gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for o3-mini.
Step 3.7 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 56.
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 56.3 versus 49.3. o3-mini 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.