MAI-Code-1.1-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash and Step 3.7 Flash are closely matched at 28.0 and 30.2 on the LLM Stats Score. Step 3.7 Flash is 1.0x cheaper per token.
Microsoft · StepFun · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash and Step 3.7 Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 28.0 and 30.2.
In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, MAI-Code-1.1-Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
Step 3.7 Flash also accepts a larger context window (262,144 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 MAI-Code-1.1-Flash
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
Choose Step 3.7 Flash
- you process long inputs — it offers a 262,144 token context window
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Individual benchmarks
2 reported for MAI-Code-1.1-Flash · 4 for Step 3.7 Flash
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Terminal-Bench 2.1), while Step 3.7 Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash 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, MAI-Code-1.1-Flash ($0.20/1M tokens) costs the same as Step 3.7 Flash ($0.20/1M tokens).
For output processing, MAI-Code-1.1-Flash ($1.20/1M tokens) is 1.0x more expensive than Step 3.7 Flash ($1.15/1M tokens).
In conclusion, MAI-Code-1.1-Flash is more expensive than Step 3.7 Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Step 3.7 Flash has 60.0B more parameters than MAI-Code-1.1-Flash, making it 43.5% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Step 3.7 Flash accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to MAI-Code-1.1-Flash's 256,000 tokens. Only Step 3.7 Flash specifies output context (262,144 tokens).
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both MAI-Code-1.1-Flash and Step 3.7 Flash support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash
Step 3.7 Flash
License
Usage and distribution terms
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash is licensed under a proprietary license, while Step 3.7 Flash uses Apache 2.0.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash was released on 2026-08-11, while Step 3.7 Flash was released on 2026-06-10.
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash is 2 months newer than Step 3.7 Flash.
Aug 11, 2026
1 months ago
2mo newerJun 10, 2026
3 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash is available from GitHub Copilot. Step 3.7 Flash is available from DeepInfra.
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash
Step 3.7 Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against MAI-Code-1.1-Flash and Step 3.7 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about MAI-Code-1.1-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash.