Model comparison

Llama 3.2 3B vs Step 3.7 Flash

Step 3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.5 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 3.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Step 3.7 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 3B Meta

28.4

Rank #318 Confirmed

Step 3.7 Flash StepFun

36.5

Rank #207 Reported

Summary

  • The widest gap is in coding, where Step 3.7 Flash leads 39.4 to 27.1.
  • Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.18 / $1.11 for Step 3.7 Flash.
  • Step 3.7 Flash accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 3B and Step 3.7 Flash specifications
Llama 3.2 3BStep 3.7 Flash
ProviderMetaStepFun
Noometry Index28.436.5
Released2024-09-242026-05-29
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K256K
Max output118K256K
Input $ / M tokens$0.05$0.18
Output $ / M tokens$0.33$1.11
Results tracked185

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Step 3.7 Flash leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314), Step 3.7 Flash: 39.4 (#147)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BStep 3.7 Flash
SciCode—40%
BigCodeBench Instruct23.4%—
LMArena Coding1098—
BigCodeBench Complete28.3%—
ALE-Bench—694.12

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BStep 3.7 Flash
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard21.9%—
BALROG10.1%—

Reasoning Too close to call

Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225), Step 3.7 Flash: 20.9 (#211)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BStep 3.7 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)—39.7%
CritPt—2.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts1095—

Math Step 3.7 Flash leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213), Step 3.7 Flash: 40.9 (#74)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BStep 3.7 Flash
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—68.5%
LMArena Math1126—

Knowledge Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Expert1090—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Non-English1019—
LMArena Chinese1017—
LMArena German1056—
LMArena Russian949—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1089—

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1101—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302), Step 3.7 Flash: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1110—
LMArena Creative Writing1094—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing595—
LMArena Multi-Turn1105—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 3B better than Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.5 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 3.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Step 3.7 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B or Step 3.7 Flash?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; Step 3.7 Flash lists at $0.18 and $1.11.

Is Llama 3.2 3B or Step 3.7 Flash better for coding?

Step 3.7 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.4 versus 27.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Step 3.7 Flash does, with 256K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and Step 3.7 Flash share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.7 Flash has 5.

Related comparisons

Go deeper