Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Step 5 Preview vs Ultramarine 1 Flash

Updated October 14, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
StepFun logo

StepFun

69.43/100

Estimated · Public rank #20

Conditional range 59.7–79.2

Model B

Paper Instruments

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Shared results
5
Step 5 Preview only
17
Ultramarine 1 Flash only
0
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Estimated: Step 5 Preview. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Ultramarine 1 Flash

    Ultramarine 1 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Ultramarine 1 Flash

    Ultramarine 1 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Ultramarine 1 Flash

    Ultramarine 1 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Ultramarine 1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Ultramarine 1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited
  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete context comparison is not sourced.

    Confidence: limited

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

60.4Step 5 Preview—Ultramarine 1 Flash

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Not comparable
Step 5 Preview
65.4
Estimated · #18/125
Ultramarine 1 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 11 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Step 5 Preview
60.4
Estimated · #20/149
Ultramarine 1 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Step 5 Preview
83.4
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Ultramarine 1 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Step 5 Preview
74.6
#24/54
Ultramarine 1 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Step 5 Preview
68.5
Supported · #22/181
Ultramarine 1 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Step 5 Preview
Not ranked
Ultramarine 1 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Step 5 Preview
Not ranked
Ultramarine 1 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Step 5 Preview
Not ranked
Ultramarine 1 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Step 5 Preview
$0.00235
Fits in one request
Ultramarine 1 Flash
$0.0004
Fit state unavailable

Ultramarine 1 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Step 5 Preview
$0.0581
Fits in one request
Ultramarine 1 Flash
$0.009
Fit state unavailable

Ultramarine 1 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Step 5 Preview
$0.057
Fits in one request
Ultramarine 1 Flash
$0.014
Fit state unavailable

Ultramarine 1 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Reasoning profile

Step 5 Preview

Reasoning

Ultramarine 1 Flash

Reasoning

Weight access

Step 5 Preview

Pending

Ultramarine 1 Flash

Proprietary

License

Step 5 Preview

Pending

Ultramarine 1 Flash

Proprietary

Release date

Step 5 Preview

2026-09-20

Ultramarine 1 Flash

2026-10-14

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.0581 vs $0.009. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.057 vs $0.014.
Context tradeoff
A complete documented context comparison is not available.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Step 5 Preview or Ultramarine 1 Flash?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Step 5 Preview or Ultramarine 1 Flash?

Ultramarine 1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Step 5 Preview or Ultramarine 1 Flash?

Ultramarine 1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Step 5 Preview or Ultramarine 1 Flash?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00235 on Step 5 Preview and $0.0004 on Ultramarine 1 Flash; repository review costs $0.0581 and $0.009; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.057 and $0.014. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Step 5 Preview or Ultramarine 1 Flash?

A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence22 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Step 5 Preview85.0%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash83.2%
    Source

    Step 5 Preview leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Step 5 Preview33.30%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Step 5 Preview84.7%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Step 5 Preview44.0%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash50.2%
    Source

    Ultramarine 1 Flash leads this result

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Step 5 Preview74.1%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Step 5 Preview85.6%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Step 5 Preview59.0%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash62.9%
    Source

    Ultramarine 1 Flash leads this result

  • APEX-Agents

    Step 5 Preview37.8%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • DRACO

    Step 5 Preview83.3%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Step 5 Preview88.7%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Step 5 Preview29.5%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • DeepSWE

    Step 5 Preview67.7%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash61.5%
    Source

    Step 5 Preview leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Step 5 Preview85.0%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash83.2%
    Source

    Step 5 Preview leads this result

  • SciCode

    Step 5 Preview58.9%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Step 5 Preview80.5%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • sweMarathon

    Step 5 Preview72.7%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MLS-Bench Lite

    Step 5 Preview40.5%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • CritPt

    Step 5 Preview20.9%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Step 5 Preview60.3%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Step 5 Preview76%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    Step 5 Preview93.5%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Step 5 Preview46.5%
    Source
    Ultramarine 1 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

22 public results · 5 shared

Watch Step 5 Preview vs Ultramarine 1 Flash

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 14, 2026