Skip to content
ModelCap

Head-to-head comparison

Ling 3.0 Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash

Ling 3.0 Flash (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 #82); and Ling 3.0 Flash is 18.3× cheaper per output token ($0.063/1M vs $1.15/1M).

Which should you choose?

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash if…

  • API cost matters — $0.063/1M output tokens against $1.15/1M, about 18.3× cheaper.
  • your workload is prompt-heavy — input tokens cost $0.021/1M against $0.20/1M.
  • AA Terminal-Bench 2.1 is your yardstick — 55.4% against 39.3%.
  • AA Humanity's Last Exam is your yardstick — 23.7% against 21.4%.
  • you want the more recently listed model — Ling 3.0 Flash was listed 23 July 2026, Step 3.7 Flash 28 May 2026.

Choose Step 3.7 Flash if…

  • you want the stronger overall ModelCap Index position — #81 against #82 (48.2 vs 47.3 points).
  • you want provider choice — 3 listed API providers against 2.

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

Specification comparison of Ling 3.0 Flash and Step 3.7 Flash
FieldLing 3.0 FlashInclusionAIStep 3.7 FlashStepFun
ModelCap Index position#82#81
Index score47.348.2
EvidenceEstimatedEstimated
Input price / 1M tokens$0.021$0.20
Output price / 1M tokens$0.063$1.15
Context window262K tokens262K tokens
Max output tokens33K230K
API providers listed23
Weight accessOpen weightsOpen weights
Input modalitiesTextText, Image, Video
First listed23 July 202628 May 2026
PublisherInclusionAIStepFun

Evidence: 5 reported rows against measured corpus ladders (56%); publisher-corpus-prior over 182 held-out anchors (44%); shrunk 1.6 toward the measured corpus · 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 vs Step 3.7 Flash

Public benchmark boards where Ling 3.0 Flash or Step 3.7 Flash has a published result
BoardLing 3.0 FlashStep 3.7 FlashLeads
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Artificial Analysis55.4%terminal-bench:2.1:terminus-2:e2b:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Ling 3.0 Flash":reasoning=true39.3%terminal-bench:2.1:terminus-2:e2b:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Step 3.7 Flash":reasoning=trueLing 3.0 Flash
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 Analysis23.7%hle:may-2025:text-only-2158:no-tools:pass-at-1:source-model="Ling 3.0 Flash":reasoning=true21.4%hle:may-2025:text-only-2158:no-tools:pass-at-1:source-model="Step 3.7 Flash":reasoning=trueLing 3.0 Flash

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 vs Step 3.7 Flash: common questions

Is Ling 3.0 Flash better than Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 9 September 2026: #81 against #82. 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 cheaper than Step 3.7 Flash?

Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper on output tokens: $0.063/1M against $1.15/1M. Input tokens are $0.021/1M for Ling 3.0 Flash 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 $0.07 for Ling 3.0 Flash versus $0.97 for Step 3.7 Flash. Ling 3.0 Flash costs 92.5% 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 or Step 3.7 Flash?

Both publish a 262K-token context window.

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

AA Terminal-Bench 2.1: Ling 3.0 Flash 55.4%, Step 3.7 Flash 39.3% — Ling 3.0 Flash leads.

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

Ling 3.0 Flash: 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 and Step 3.7 Flash?

ModelCap currently lists 2 API providers for Ling 3.0 Flash 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 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