Skip to main content
Radar

Every change to the models you run, with its source and its date. Releases, price changes, retirements, API changes, and incidents.Every change to the models you run, with its source.

Follow model changes
CurrentReleased Sep 20, 2026Weight access pendingReasoning1M contextStepFun model documentation

Step 5 Preview

Decision reading
Step 5 Preview is tracked, but not publicly ranked yet. The profile exposes 22 sourced benchmark rows and leaves unsupported fields blank until a published record exists.

Released Sep 20, 2026 see all recent releases

Data as of September 21, 2026 · How the score is built

Strongest published evidence

Multimodal & Grounded ranks #28. Particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.

Validate before choosing

22 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty.

Decision snapshot

Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.

Capability

Unranked

field median 56.3

Not eligible for a public rank

Price

$1input / $2.70 output

input median $1

cached $0.050 · blended $1.85

Speed

92tok/s

field median 97 tok/s

First token 24.86 s

Context

1Mtokens

field median 256,000

Maximum output length is tracked separately

How much of this is verified

Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.

  1. Agentic11/11 verified
  2. Coding6/6 verified
  3. Reasoning1/1 verified
  4. Multimodal2/2 verified
  5. Knowledge2/2 verified
  6. MultilingualNot measured
  7. Inst. FollowingNot measured
  8. MathNot measured
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured

Category score record

Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.

Category scores, ranks, weighting, benchmark coverage, and evidence status
CategoryScore
AgenticRank Not rankedWeight 22%11 benchmarksVerified78.3
CodingRank Not rankedWeight 20%6 benchmarksVerified75.9
ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%1 benchmarkVerified78.5
MultimodalRank #28 of 49Percentile 44thWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified61.2
KnowledgeRank Not rankedWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified67.1
MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measuredNot measured
Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measuredNot measured
MathWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measuredNot measured

Benchmark ledger

Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.

Coding6 rows
Coding benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
SciCodeScientific Code BenchmarkScore58.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Sakana Fugu · 60.1%

Gap1.2 behindWeightWeighted 10%
DeepSWEScore67.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark 1.3 · 75.4%

Gap7.7 behindWeightDisplay only
Terminal-Bench 2.1Terminal-Bench 2.1 (provider run)Score85.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8%

Gap7.8 behindWeightDisplay only
ProgramBenchProgramBench: Can Language Models Rebuild Programs From Scratch?Score80.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 93.0%

Gap12.5 behindWeightDisplay only
sweMarathonScore72.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Step 5 Preview · 72.7%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
MLS-Bench LiteScore40.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Kimi K3 · 48.3%

Gap7.8 behindWeightDisplay only
Agentic11 rows
Agentic benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
BrowseCompScore88.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 92.5%

Gap3.8 behindWeightWeighted 25%
AutomationBenchScore44.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · 54.8%

Gap10.8 behindWeightWeighted 10%
Terminal-Bench 2.1Terminal-Bench 2.1 (provider run)Score85.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8%

Gap7.8 behindWeightDisplay only
Terminal-Bench 4.0Score33.30%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Mythos 5.1 · 60.90%

Gap27.6 behindWeightDisplay only
CyberGymScore84.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · 88.1%

Gap3.4 behindWeightDisplay only
Toolathlon-VerifiedScore74.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 80.6%

Gap6.5 behindWeightDisplay only
MCP AtlasScore85.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark 1.1 · 88.1%

Gap2.5 behindWeightDisplay only
JobBenchScore59.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark 1.3 · 64.9%

Gap5.9 behindWeightDisplay only
APEX-AgentsScore37.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Grok 4.6 · 57.5%

Gap19.7 behindWeightDisplay only
DRACOData Research and Analysis with Complex OperationsScore83.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 88.6%

Gap5.3 behindWeightDisplay only
Agents' Last ExamScore29.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 59.3%

Gap29.8 behindWeightDisplay only
Reasoning1 row
Reasoning benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
CritPtCritical Physics TasksScore20.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 31.7%

Gap10.8 behindWeightDisplay only
Multimodal2 rows
Multimodal benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding ProScore76%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 3.5 Flash · 83.6%

Gap7.6 behindWeightWeighted 40%
OfficeQA ProScore60.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 66.9%

Gap6.6 behindWeightWeighted 25%
Knowledge2 rows
Knowledge benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
HLEHumanity's Last ExamScore46.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 65%

Gap18.5 behindWeightWeighted 35%
GPQA-DGPQA DiamondScore93.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96.0%

Gap2.5 behindWeightDisplay only

Spec sheet

Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.

Knowledge cutoff
Not sourced yet
Input modalities
text, image, videoStepFun Step 5 Preview model documentation
Parameters
Not sourced yet
Availability
StepFun Open Platform APIStepFun Step 5 Preview model documentation
Cloud regions
Not tracked yet
API capabilities
Streaming output · tool calling · JSON Mode / JSON Schema · prompt cachingStepFun Step 5 Preview model documentation
Prompt caching
Published at $0.050 per million cached input tokensStepFun pricing and rate limits
Self-host
Weight availability is pending
Rate limits
Not tracked yet

Lineage

The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. A successor's displayed score stays at least 0.1 points above its predecessor; raw benchmark rows do not move. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.

  1. Sep 20, 2026 · you are here

    Step 5 Preview

    Not publicly ranked · $1 / $2.7

preview · Preview

How to read this profile

The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.

We track Step 5 Preview, but the public leaderboard excludes this profile until enough non-generated benchmark coverage is available. Only published rows appear above.

Step 5 Preview has no verified publication yet for weight access. Its 1M context window is documented separately from that pending weight status. The profile records its reasoning mode as reasoning.

Available through StepFun's Open Platform API as `step-5-preview`. StepFun says it will release open weights on October 15; no checkpoint or license is published yet.

Official exact-value snapshot from StepFun's Step 5 Preview launch table, using the published High reasoning setting. We map only rows with an existing compatible benchmark lane and keep this API-hosted preview out of ranking coverage while independent or protocol-aligned results arrive. StepFun-developed StepCodeBench and FinStepBench rows, the HLE-with-tools text-only subset, GDP.pdf, and other provider-specific or protocol-ambiguous results stay outside the scored fields. StepFun says open weights will be released on October 15 but has not published a checkpoint or license.

22 of 447 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.

Its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #28. particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.

Radar

Step 5 Preview release history

Full release history

Radar confirmed these at the source. Use Step 5 Preview in your work? Explore Radar to follow supported changes and choose your alerts.

Questions

How does Step 5 Preview perform overall in AI benchmarks?

Step 5 Preview has 22 source-displayable benchmark rows, but it does not qualify for a public overall rank. The available rows remain visible by category without being converted into a site-wide score. Missing evidence stays blank instead of being estimated from an earlier model.

Is Step 5 Preview good for knowledge and understanding?

Step 5 Preview has source-displayable benchmark coverage for knowledge and understanding, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is Step 5 Preview good for coding and programming?

Step 5 Preview has source-displayable benchmark coverage for coding and programming, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is Step 5 Preview good for reasoning and logic?

Step 5 Preview has source-displayable benchmark coverage for reasoning and logic, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is Step 5 Preview good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?

Step 5 Preview has source-displayable benchmark coverage for agentic tool use and computer tasks, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is Step 5 Preview good for multimodal and grounded tasks?

Step 5 Preview ranks #28 out of 49 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 61.2/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Does Step 5 Preview have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?

No. Step 5 Preview currently has 34 source-displayable rows across 447 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.

What is the context window size of Step 5 Preview?

Step 5 Preview has a documented context window of 1M. That figure is the maximum combined prompt and retained-conversation space reported for this exact model; it is not the maximum output length. The profile keeps output limits separate because providers often publish those limits independently.

Compare Step 5 Preview with every tracked model496 comparisons

Last updated September 21, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.

Watch Step 5 Preview in the weekly brief

Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.