Step 5 Preview released
StepFun · Model release
Source confirmed
Data as of October 6, 2026 · How the score is built
CurrentWeight access pendingReasoning
Step 5 Preview
Decision readingStep 5 Preview scores 70.3 out of 100 and ranks #17 of 214. This profile shows 22 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #17. API pricing is $1 input and $2.7 output per million tokens, with cached input at $0.05.
Released Sep 20, 2026 — see all recent releases
Step 5 Preview will be repriced, updated or retired. Get each notice with its source and date. Follow model changes
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
70.3/100
field median 52#17 of 214 ranked models
Public
#17of 214
Verified —
Price
$1input / $2.70 output
input median $0.95cached $0.050 · blended $1.85
Speed
87tok/s
field median 98 tok/sFirst token 25.73 s
Context
1Mtokens
field median 256,000Maximum output length is tracked separately
Strongest published evidence
Agentic ranks #17. Particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
Validate before choosing
22 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Multimodal & Grounded is its lowest eligible category at #28.
Source-linked · 22 displayable benchmark rows
Follow model changesCategory 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 | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #17 of 120Percentile 87thWeight 22%11 benchmarksVerified | 63.5 | 11 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| CodingRank #17 of 144Percentile 89thWeight 20%6 benchmarksVerified | 61.4 | 6 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%1 benchmarkVerified | 79.6 | 1 benchmark | Verified | |||
| MultimodalRank #28 of 49Percentile 44thWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified | 61.2 | 2 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| KnowledgeRank #19 of 173Percentile 90thWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified | 67.1 | 2 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| MathWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
22 of 655 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100
Coverage detailsHow 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.
- Agentic11/11 verified
- Coding6/6 verified
- Reasoning1/1 verified
- Multimodal2/2 verified
- Knowledge2/2 verified
- MultilingualNot measured
- Inst. FollowingNot measured
- MathNot measured
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured
Capability shape
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
Step 5 Preview category percentile values
- Agentic87th percentile
- Coding89th percentile
- ReasoningNot eligible
- Multimodal44th percentile
- Knowledge90th percentile
- MultilingualNot eligible
- Instruction followingNot eligible
- MathNot eligible
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Eligible category ranks
- Agentic#17/120
- Coding#17/144
- ReasoningNot ranked
- Multimodal#28/49
- Knowledge#19/173
- MultilingualNot ranked
- Inst. FollowingNot ranked
- MathNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible
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
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | Score67.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 4 Argon · 77.9% | Gap10.2 behind | Weight15% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| SciCodeScientific Code Benchmark | Score58.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu · 60.1% | Gap1.2 behind | Weight10% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | Score85.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8% | Gap7.8 behind | WeightScored in Agentic | Provider exact |
| ProgramBenchProgramBench: Can Language Models Rebuild Programs From Scratch? | Score80.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 93.0% | Gap12.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| sweMarathon | Score72.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Step 5 Preview · 72.7% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| MLS-Bench Lite | Score40.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Kimi K3 · 48.3% | Gap7.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Agentic11 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | Score85.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8% | Gap7.8 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 | Score33.30% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 70.60% | Gap37.3 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| BrowseComp | Score88.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 92.5% | Gap3.8 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| AutomationBench | Score44.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · 54.8% | Gap10.8 behind | Weight5% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| JobBench | Score59.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark 1.3 · 64.9% | Gap5.9 behind | Weight5% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| MCP Atlas | Score85.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark 1.1 · 88.1% | Gap2.5 behind | Weight4% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| Toolathlon-Verified | Score74.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 80.6% | Gap6.5 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| Agents' Last Exam | Score29.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 59.3% | Gap29.8 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| CyberGym | Score84.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: MiMo-V2.6-Flash · 95.1% | Gap10.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| APEX-Agents | Score37.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Grok 4.6 · 57.5% | Gap19.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| DRACOData Research and Analysis with Complex Operations | Score83.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 88.6% | Gap5.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Reasoning1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CritPtCritical Physics Tasks | Score20.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 31.7% | Gap10.8 behind | WeightFeeds overall | Provider exact |
Multimodal2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Pro | Score76% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.5 Flash · 83.6% | Gap7.6 behind | WeightWeighted 40% | Provider exact |
| OfficeQA Pro | Score60.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7% | Gap7.4 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
Knowledge2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLEHumanity's Last Exam | Score46.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 65% | Gap18.5 behind | Weight44% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| GPQA-DGPQA Diamond | Score93.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96.0% | Gap2.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Bars run 0–100; the dark tick marks the best source-verified value
All 22 rowsWhat it costs to get this score
Published API price against the public score. The x-axis uses a log scale; the dashed path marks models that are not beaten by a cheaper, higher-scoring option. Price uses average of published input and output rates.
Current modelExplore all models
Step 5 Preview · 70.3 score · $1.85 blended per million tokens
The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.
Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score
Lineage
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
preview · Preview
Radar
Full release historyStep 5 Preview 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.
Radar
Spec sheet
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
- API model ID
- step-5-previewStepFun Step 5 Preview model documentation
- Context window
- 1MStepFun Step 5 Preview model documentation
- Maximum output
- 64K tokensStepFun Step 5 Preview model documentation
- Knowledge cutoff
- Not sourced yet
- Input modalities
- text, image, videoStepFun Step 5 Preview model documentation
- Output modalities
- textStepFun Step 5 Preview model documentation
- Parameters
- Not sourced yet
- Availability
- StepFun Open Platform APIStepFun Step 5 Preview model documentation
- Cloud regions
- Not tracked yet
- Lifecycle
- previewStepFun Step 5 Preview model documentation
- 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
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.
Step 5 Preview ranks #17 of 214 on the public leaderboard with a score of 70.26/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.
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 655 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #17, while its lowest eligible position is Multimodal & Grounded at #28. particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
Last updated October 6, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Questions
How does Step 5 Preview perform overall in AI benchmarks?
Step 5 Preview ranks #17 out of 214 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 70.26/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 22 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Is Step 5 Preview good for knowledge and understanding?
Step 5 Preview ranks #19 out of 173 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 67.1/100. 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.
Is Step 5 Preview good for coding and programming?
Step 5 Preview ranks #17 out of 144 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 61.4/100. 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.
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 ranks #17 out of 120 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 63.5/100. 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.
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 42 source-displayable rows across 655 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.