AI Models · Open-Source vs Paid

Step 3.7 Flash Open vs Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) Paid

Step 3.7 Flash vs Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Can the open-source model replace the paid one? Full 2026 breakdown.

Prices & specs refreshed from live data · olud.ai

Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.

Step 3.7 FlashOpenStepfun
$0.2 /M input
$1.15 /M outputNo per-token fees if you self-host
TypeOpen-weight
Context window262K tokens
MultimodalYes
Self-hostYes
Claude Fable 5.1 (batch)PaidAnthropic
$5 /M input
$25 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
TypeProprietary
Context window1M tokens
MultimodalYes
Self-hostNo
Choose Step 3.7 Flash if you want to self-host, keep your data private and skip per-token fees — it's open-weight and runs on your own hardware. Choose Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.

Step 3.7 Flash vs Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) specs

SpecStep 3.7 FlashClaude Fable 5.1 (batch)Winner
MakerStepfunAnthropic
TypeOpen-weightProprietaryStep 3.7 Flash
Context window262K tokens1M tokensClaude Fable 5.1 (batch)
Input price$0.2/M · free self-host$5/MStep 3.7 Flash
Output price$1.15/M · free self-host$25/MStep 3.7 Flash
Vision / multimodalYesYes= Tie
Tool / function callingYesYes= Tie
Self-hostableYesNo (API only)Step 3.7 Flash
LicenseOpen weightsProprietaryStep 3.7 Flash

Price gap & when to choose each

22×cheaper per output token

Step 3.7 Flash is ~22× cheaper than Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) on output tokens ($1.15 vs $25 per M tokens).

Choose Step 3.7 Flash if…
  • You want to self-host or run on your cloud
  • You prioritize data privacy & control
  • You want the lowest operating costs
  • You are building open or reproducible AI
Choose Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) if…
  • You want frontier performance through a managed API
  • You need the longer 1M context window
  • You value reliability & ecosystem
  • You don't want to manage infrastructure

Feature comparison

CapabilityStep 3.7 FlashClaude Fable 5.1 (batch)
Open weights (downloadable)
Self-hostable
Runs fully offline
Vision / multimodal
Tool / function calling
1M+ context window

Benchmarks: Step 3.7 Flash vs Claude Fable 5.1 (batch)

Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).

Step 3.7 Flash delivers 16× more intelligence per dollar.
Step 3.7 Flash
Claude Fable 5.1 (batch)
Intelligence index
19.5
53.4
Coding index
39.6
81.6
GPQA
80.9%
93.7%
Humanity's Last Exam
21.4%
59.1%
Long Context Reasoning
73.7%
85.3%
SciCode
43.9%
63.1%
IFBench
67.3%
τ²-Bench
98.5%
τ-Bench Banking
12%
47.2%
Terminal-Bench
39.3%
91.4%
Terminal-Bench Hard
35.6%
Speed
132.8 tok/s
66.7 tok/s
Latency
1.59s
137.76s
Intelligence per $
44.5
2.7

Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.

How Step 3.7 Flash and Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) score

🏆 Best value & openness: Step 3.7 Flash (4.7 vs 3.1 / 5)
CriterionStep 3.7 FlashClaude Fable 5.1 (batch)
Cost-efficiency4.53.0
Context window4.05.0
Openness5.01.5
Self-hosting5.01.0
Multimodality5.05.0

Scores come from live data — output price (cost), context length, open vs closed weights (openness & self-hosting) and vision/tool support (multimodality). Raw task quality isn't scored here; it depends on your benchmark — see the verdict.

What each model is

Step 3.7 Flash Open

Stepfun · Open-weight

Step 3.7 Flash is StepFun's latest high-efficiency multimodal Mixture-of-Experts model. It pairs a 196B-parameter language backbone with a vision encoder for native image and video understanding, activating roughly 11B parameters...

Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) Paid

Anthropic · Proprietary

Claude Fable 5.1 improves on Claude Fable 5 across the board, with the biggest gains in agentic coding, long-running agentic workflows, and knowledge work: long code refactors, front-end and visual...

Other models in these families

These variants are tracked but not compared here — one page per family keeps the comparison readable.

Other variants tracked
Step 3.5 Flash

Frequently asked questions

Is Step 3.7 Flash as good as Claude Fable 5.1 (batch)?

Step 3.7 Flash is open-weight and competitive on many tasks, but Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) may still lead on the hardest reasoning and agentic work. The gap keeps narrowing — benchmark both on your actual use case before deciding.

Can I run Step 3.7 Flash locally?

Yes. Step 3.7 Flash has open weights, so you can self-host it on your own GPUs or run it via a low-cost API. Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) is API-only and cannot be self-hosted.

How much cheaper is Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash costs $1.15/M output vs $25/M for Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) — roughly 22x cheaper via API, and free if you self-host.

Step 3.7 Flash vs Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) — which should I pick in 2026?

Choose Step 3.7 Flash if you want to self-host, keep your data private and skip per-token fees — it's open-weight and runs on your own hardware. Choose Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.

People also compare

Explore more open-source AI

Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.

Open the leaderboard →