Model comparison
Step 3.7 Flash vs Trinity-Large-Thinking
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: Step 3.7 Flash estimated; Trinity-Large-Thinking supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Step 3.7 Flash and Trinity-Large-Thinking share 16 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to Step 3.7 Flash; 4 to Trinity-Large-Thinking.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 14
- Trinity-Large-Thinking only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Step 3.7 Flash and Trinity-Large-Thinking is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Step 3.7 Flash is priced at $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.25 input / $0.90 output per 1M tokens for Trinity-Large-Thinking. Trinity-Large-Thinking has the larger context window at 512K, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
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 | Step 3.7 Flash | Δ | Trinity-Large-Thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Step 3.7 Flash66.4 | MarginNo overlap | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot measured |
| Coding | Step 3.7 Flash56.3 | MarginNo overlap | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Step 3.7 Flash | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Step 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 output | Trinity-Large-Thinking$0.25 input / $0.9 output | Trinity-Large-Thinking has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Step 3.7 Flash256K | Trinity-Large-Thinking512K | Trinity-Large-Thinking lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Step 3.7 Flash | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.5% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 75.8% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 92.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 25.9% | 2.7% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 49.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 67.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 47.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 51.57% | 32.55% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.5% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.5% | 90.1% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1017 | 554 | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 14.8% | — | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Step 3.7 Flash | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 56.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 39.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 35.6% | 22.7% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.0% | 36.1% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 63.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Step 3.7 Flash | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 30.3% | 24.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 80.9% | 75.2% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-HLESource | 19.9% | 14.7% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -37.5% | -44.2% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 25.4% | 22.8% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 84.4% | 86.6% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 76.3% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Step 3.7 Flash | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | — | 96.3% | Not comparable |
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Step 3.7 Flash | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 67.3% | 56.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Step 3.7 Flash and Trinity-Large-Thinking on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Step 3.7 Flash and Trinity-Large-Thinking today?
Step 3.7 Flash: $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens Trinity-Large-Thinking: $0.25 input / $0.90 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
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.