Step 3.7 Flash vs Claude Sonnet 5 compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Can the open-source model replace the paid one? Full 2026 breakdown.
Claude Sonnet 5 — full profile ›
Prices & specs refreshed from live data · olud.ai
Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.
| Spec | Step 3.7 Flash | Claude Sonnet 5 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maker | Stepfun | Anthropic | – |
| Type | Open-weight | Proprietary | |
| Context window | 262K tokens | 1M tokens | |
| Input price | $0.2/M · free self-host | $2/M | |
| Output price | $1.15/M · free self-host | $10/M | |
| Vision / multimodal | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Tool / function calling | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No (API only) | |
| License | Open weights | Proprietary |
Step 3.7 Flash is ~8.7× cheaper than Claude Sonnet 5 on output tokens ($1.15 vs $10 per M tokens).
| Capability | Step 3.7 Flash | Claude Sonnet 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Open weights (downloadable) | ✓ | ✗ |
| Self-hostable | ✓ | ✗ |
| Runs fully offline | ✓ | ✗ |
| Vision / multimodal | ✓ | ✓ |
| Tool / function calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| 1M+ context window | ✗ | ✓ |
Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).
Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.
| Criterion | Step 3.7 Flash | Claude Sonnet 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost-efficiency | 4.5 | 3.5 |
| Context window | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| Openness | 5.0 | 1.5 |
| Self-hosting | 5.0 | 1.0 |
| Multimodality | 5.0 | 5.0 |
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.
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...
Sonnet 5 is Anthropic's most capable Sonnet-class model, with frontier performance across coding, agents, and professional work. It supports adaptive thinking with selectable reasoning effort levels (low, medium, high, max,...
These variants are tracked but not compared here — one page per family keeps the comparison readable.
Step 3.7 Flash is open-weight and competitive on many tasks, but Claude Sonnet 5 may still lead on the hardest reasoning and agentic work. The gap keeps narrowing — benchmark both on your actual use case before deciding.
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 Sonnet 5 is API-only and cannot be self-hosted.
Step 3.7 Flash costs $1.15/M output vs $10/M for Claude Sonnet 5 — roughly 9x cheaper via API, and free if you self-host.
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 Sonnet 5 if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.
Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.
Open the leaderboard →