Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Sakana Fugu Ultra
100
Step 3.7 Flash
67
Pick Sakana Fugu Ultra if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+16.2 difference
Coding
+27.2 difference
Sakana Fugu Ultra
Step 3.7 Flash
$5 / $30
$0.2 / $1.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
256K
Pick Sakana Fugu Ultra if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Sakana Fugu Ultra is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 100 to 67. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Sakana Fugu Ultra's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 83.5 against 56.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 82.1% to 59.5%.
Sakana Fugu Ultra is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $30.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. That is roughly 26.1x on output cost alone. Sakana Fugu Ultra gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
Sakana Fugu Ultra is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 100 to 67. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 82.1% and 59.5%.
Sakana Fugu Ultra has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 83.5 versus 56.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Sakana Fugu Ultra has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.1 versus 65.9. 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.