Beam 1.0 vs Step 3.7 Flash
Beam 1.0 leads the LLM Stats Score 44.6 to 29.7. Step 3.7 Flash is 1.4x cheaper per token.
Reflection AI · StepFun · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Beam 1.0 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 44.6 to 29.7, ranking #46 overall.
In the 2 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Beam 1.0 wins 2; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Step 3.7 Flash is roughly 1.4x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Beam 1.0 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Beam 1.0
- overall performance matters — it scores 44.6 and ranks #46 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 2 exact shared results
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026
Choose Step 3.7 Flash
- cost matters — it's about 1.4x cheaper per token
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Individual benchmarks
22 reported for Beam 1.0 · 4 for Step 3.7 Flash
Beam 1.0 outperforms in 2 benchmarks (SWE-Bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.1), while Step 3.7 Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.
Beam 1.0 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Beam 1.0 ($0.40/1M tokens) is 2.0x more expensive than Step 3.7 Flash ($0.20/1M tokens).
For output processing, Beam 1.0 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 1.0x more expensive than Step 3.7 Flash ($1.15/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Beam 1.0 is more expensive than Step 3.7 Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Beam 1.0 has 303.3B more parameters than Step 3.7 Flash, making it 153.2% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Beam 1.0 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Step 3.7 Flash's 262,144 tokens. Step 3.7 Flash can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Beam 1.0 is limited to 131,072 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Step 3.7 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Beam 1.0 does not.
Step 3.7 Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Beam 1.0
Step 3.7 Flash
License
Usage and distribution terms
Both models are licensed under Apache 2.0.
Both models share the same licensing terms, providing consistent usage rights.
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Beam 1.0 was released on 2026-10-16, while Step 3.7 Flash was released on 2026-06-10.
Beam 1.0 is 4 months newer than Step 3.7 Flash.
Oct 16, 2026
1 weeks ago
4mo newerJun 10, 2026
4 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Beam 1.0 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-30, while Step 3.7 Flash's cutoff date is not specified.
We can confirm Beam 1.0's training data extends to 2026-06-30, but cannot make a direct comparison without Step 3.7 Flash's cutoff date.
Jun 2026
—
Provider Availability
Beam 1.0 is available from Together, Reflection AI. Step 3.7 Flash is available from DeepInfra.
Beam 1.0
Step 3.7 Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Beam 1.0 and Step 3.7 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Beam 1.0 vs Step 3.7 Flash.