Skip to content
ModelCap

Head-to-head comparison

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Step 3.7 Flash

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (InclusionAI) and Step 3.7 Flash (StepFun) compared on the ModelCap Index, API price, context window, provider availability, weight access and every public benchmark board they share. Figures are the same ones shown on the live rankings; nothing here is a hidden score.

Snapshot as of 9 September 2026

As of 9 September 2026, Step 3.7 Flash holds the stronger ModelCap Index position (#81 vs #84); and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 6.4× cheaper per output token ($0.18/1M vs $1.15/1M).

Which should you choose?

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash Fin if…

  • API cost matters — $0.18/1M output tokens against $1.15/1M, about 6.4× cheaper.
  • your workload is prompt-heavy — input tokens cost $0.06/1M against $0.20/1M.
  • you want the more recently listed model — Ling 3.0 Flash Fin was listed 27 August 2026, Step 3.7 Flash 28 May 2026.

Choose Step 3.7 Flash if…

  • you want the stronger overall ModelCap Index position — #81 against #84 (48.2 vs 46.1 points).
  • you want provider choice — 3 listed API providers against 1.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Step 3.7 Flash: specs, pricing and context

Specification comparison of Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Step 3.7 Flash
FieldLing 3.0 Flash FinInclusionAIStep 3.7 FlashStepFun
ModelCap Index position#84#81
Index score46.148.2
EvidenceInheritedEstimated
Input price / 1M tokens$0.06$0.20
Output price / 1M tokens$0.18$1.15
Context window262K tokens262K tokens
Max output tokens236K230K
API providers listed13
Weight accessOpen weightsOpen weights
Input modalitiesTextText, Image, Video
First listed27 August 202628 May 2026
PublisherInclusionAIStepFun

Evidence: finetune of inclusionai/ling-3.0-flash · finetune (100%) · 3 reported rows against measured corpus ladders (14%); global-corpus-prior over 182 held-out anchors (19%); measured predecessor stepfun/step-3.5-flash less the succession penalty (67%); shrunk 1.3 up toward the measured corpus. Prices are the lowest listed API offer per million tokens observed on the OpenRouter catalogue.

Benchmark scores: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Step 3.7 Flash

Public benchmark boards where Ling 3.0 Flash Fin or Step 3.7 Flash has a published result
BoardLing 3.0 Flash FinStep 3.7 FlashLeads
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Artificial Analysis39.3%terminal-bench:2.1:terminus-2:e2b:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Step 3.7 Flash":reasoning=trueOnly one result
AA τ²-Bench TelecomArtificial Analysis98.5%tau2:telecom:dual-control:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Step 3.7 Flash":reasoning=trueOnly one result
AA Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis21.4%hle:may-2025:text-only-2158:no-tools:pass-at-1:source-model="Step 3.7 Flash":reasoning=trueOnly one result

Scores are the sources' own published figures for each model's best evaluated configuration; ModelCap never re-runs a benchmark.

Want a different pairing? Open the interactive comparison tool to swap either model for any current ranked language model.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Step 3.7 Flash: common questions

Is Ling 3.0 Flash Fin better than Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 9 September 2026: #81 against #84. That is a capability ranking built from public benchmark evidence with published uncertainty; whether it is "better" for you also depends on price, context and where you can run it. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.

Is Ling 3.0 Flash Fin cheaper than Step 3.7 Flash?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is cheaper on output tokens: $0.18/1M against $1.15/1M. Input tokens are $0.06/1M for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and $0.20/1M for Step 3.7 Flash. Prices are the lowest listed API offer ModelCap observed, in USD per million tokens. For 1,000 requests with 2,000 input and 500 output tokens each (2M input + 0.5M output), the listed-rate estimate is $0.21 for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin versus $0.97 for Step 3.7 Flash. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs 78.5% less in this scenario. This excludes caching, batch discounts, prompt-length tiers, tool charges and retries; verify the selected endpoint before budgeting.

Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin or Step 3.7 Flash?

Both publish a 262K-token context window.

Which is better for coding, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin or Step 3.7 Flash?

The two models do not share a coding benchmark board on ModelCap yet, so no head-to-head coding score is published; the ModelCap Index position is the closest overall signal.

Are Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Step 3.7 Flash open-weight models?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin: Open weights. Step 3.7 Flash: Open weights. Open weights mean the checkpoint can be downloaded and self-hosted under its licence; API-only models are available solely through hosted endpoints.

Where can I run Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Step 3.7 Flash?

ModelCap currently lists 1 API provider for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and 3 for Step 3.7 Flash, from the OpenRouter catalogue snapshot the site serves; each model page lists the providers and their prices.

How current is this Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Step 3.7 Flash comparison?

Every figure comes from the sealed ModelCap dataset published 9 September 2026; the page re-renders within a minute of each data refresh, and the ModelCap Index positions are the same ones shown on the live rankings.

Explore further