Fugu Ultra vs Step 3.7 Flash
| Signal | Fugu Ultra | Delta | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 100 | +17 | |
Pricing | 70 | -29 | |
Context window size | 86 | +8 | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 85 | -5 | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 5 | 2 wins |
Score History
40
current score
Tied
right now
40
current score
Fugu Ultra
sakana
Step 3.7 Flash
StepFun
Step 3.7 Flash saves you $1922.50/month
That's $23070.00/year compared to Fugu Ultra at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Fugu Ultra | Step 3.7 Flash | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 40 | 40 | -- |
| Rank | #172 | #178 | Fugu Ultra |
| Quality Rank | #172 | #178 | Fugu Ultra |
| Adoption Rank | #172 | #178 | Fugu Ultra |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 1000K | 256K | Fugu Ultra |
| Pricing | $5.00/$30.00/M | $0.20/$1.15/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 100 | 83 | Fugu Ultra |
| Pricing | 70 | 99 | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Context window size | 86 | 77 | Fugu Ultra |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | Fugu Ultra |
| Output Capacity | 85 | 90 | Step 3.7 Flash |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 40/100 (rank #172), placing it in the top 41% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 40/100 (rank #178), placing it in the top 39% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Choose Fugu Ultra when you need:
- Processing long documents or large codebases (1000K token context)
- Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
Choose Step 3.7 Flash when you need:
- High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
- Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
- Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Step 3.7 Flash offers 96% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $20.25/month with Step 3.7 Flash vs $525.00/month with Fugu Ultra - a $504.75 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Step 3.7 Flash also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1000K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($1.15/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (40/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Fugu Ultra and Step 3.7 Flash are extremely close in overall performance (only 0 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
By Use Case
Best for Quality
Fugu Ultra
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Step 3.7 Flash
96% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Fugu Ultra
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Fugu Ultra
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Fugu Ultra
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by sakana
- Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
- Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
- Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
- Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
| Capability | Fugu Ultra | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Searchdiffers | ||
| Image Output |
Fugu Ultra
sakana
Step 3.7 Flash
StepFun
Step 3.7 Flash saves you $43.26/month
That's 96% cheaper than Fugu Ultra at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Fugu Ultra | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 1M | 256K |
| Max Output Tokens | 128,000 | 256,000 |
| Open Source | No | Yes |
| Created | Jun 24, 2026 | May 28, 2026 |