Step 3.7 Flash vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Benchmarks, API Token Pricing, Context Window & Speed Comparison
Related topics (4)
Compare Step 3.7 Flash by StepFun against GPT-6.1 Sol by OpenAI across real-world coding, reasoning, token economics, and latency.
Cambia e Confronta Qualsiasi Modello
Select any AI models from our verified benchmark database to generate live side-by-side matrices.
Live comparison: no in-depth editorial review has been published for this pair yet.
Step 3.7 Flash
Modello a Pesi ApertiStep 3.7 Flash di StepFun è un modello di intelligenza artificiale con finestra di contesto da 256K token e tariffazione API di $0/1M token in input e $0/1M in output, ideale per coding, ragionamento e automazione aziendale.
$0.00 / 1M
$0.00 / 1M
256K tokens
N/A
GPT-6.1 Sol
Modello di Ragionamento ProfondoGPT-6.1 Sol di OpenAI è un modello di intelligenza artificiale con finestra di contesto da 1M token e tariffazione API di $2.0/1M token in input e $10.0/1M in output, ideale per coding, ragionamento e automazione aziendale.
$2.00 / 1M
$10.00 / 1M
1M tokens
82.3%
Differenze Chiave a Colpo d’Occhio
- Step 3.7 Flash is 1.0x cheaper for API usage (input + output tokens combined).
- GPT-6.1 Sol has a larger context window (1M vs 256K tokens).
- Step 3.7 Flash is faster at 160 tok/s vs 120 tok/s.
| Feature | Step 3.7 Flash | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
Intelligence Index Composite reasoning & knowledge score (0-100) | 76 | 94 |
Provider | StepFun | OpenAI |
Input Price Cost per million input tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $2.00 / 1M |
Output Price Cost per million output tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $10.00 / 1M |
Blended Price Weighted 7:2:1 cache:input:output per 1M | $0.00 / 1M | $1.47 / 1M |
Context Window Maximum input + output tokens | 256K tokens~384 A4 pages of text | 1M tokens~1,500 A4 pages of text |
Max Output Tokens Per single request | 8K | 128K |
Throughput Speed Tokens generated per second | 160 tok/s | 120 tok/s |
SWE-bench Verified Real-world software engineering | N/A | 82.3% |
GPQA Diamond Graduate-level reasoning | N/A | 80.8% |
Cached Input Price Prompt caching discount per 1M tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.10 / 1M |
Chi vince in ogni categoria?
At-a-glance decision frameworkEvaluations ongoing
Punteggi Benchmark Verificati
Official evaluation metrics verified by independent third-party research labs.
Industry benchmark evaluating real-world GitHub issue resolution and multi-file debugging.
Challenging questions created by domain experts to test complex PhD-level reasoning.
Hardened reasoning and academic knowledge benchmark with reduced lucky-guess probability.
Crowdsourced human preference evaluation based on blind, head-to-head model battles.
Extremely difficult, closed-ended questions spanning the frontier of human expert knowledge.
Autonomous multi-step tasks executed inside a real command-line terminal environment.
Research-grade coding problems drawn from real scientific and numerical workloads.
Contamination-free competitive programming problems collected continuously over time.
American Invitational Mathematics Examination — multi-step Olympiad-level reasoning.
Accuracy when reasoning over very large inputs that fill the model context window.
Tokens emitted per second during active generation streaming.
Latenza e Tempo di Risposta
Time to first token (TTFT) and estimated end-to-end response time for a typical 500-token response.
Simulatore Interattivo dei Costi Token
Adjust sliders to calculate projected monthly cloud API spending with prompt caching discounts.
Step 3.7 Flash · Strengths & Key Advantages
- Architettura High-Velocity Open Reasoning MoE avanzata di StepFun con supporto fino a 256K token di contesto
- Ottimo rapporto qualità-prezzo ($0/1M input, $0/1M output) e bassa latenza
- Elevate prestazioni nei benchmark di programmazione, logica e comprensione multilingue
Considerations & Trade-offs
- L'utilizzo intensivo di contesti molto ampi richiede un attento monitoraggio dei costi dei token
- Per casi d'uso verticali complessi è consigliabile un prompt engineering mirato
GPT-6.1 Sol · Strengths & Key Advantages
- Architettura Near-Astra unified reasoning model avanzata di OpenAI con supporto fino a 1M token di contesto
- Ottimo rapporto qualità-prezzo ($2.0/1M input, $10.0/1M output) e bassa latenza
- Elevate prestazioni nei benchmark di programmazione, logica e comprensione multilingue
Considerations & Trade-offs
- L'utilizzo intensivo di contesti molto ampi richiede un attento monitoraggio dei costi dei token
- Per casi d'uso verticali complessi è consigliabile un prompt engineering mirato
Token Use & Task Economics
Estimated cost and token consumption to complete one representative agentic task.
| Metric | Step 3.7 Flash | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
Cost per Task Estimated USD to finish one task | $0.00 | $2.05 |
Output Tokens / Task Tokens generated per task | 12K | 62K |
Reasoning Tokens / Task Thinking tokens burned per task | 2K | 36K |
Specifiche Tecniche
Architecture, release timeline, capabilities, and modalities.
| Feature | Step 3.7 Flash | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Official API Model ID (SDK) | step-3-7-flash | gpt-6-1-sol |
| API Protocol | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI | OpenAI Responses API & Chat Completions v1 |
| Release Date | 2026-05 | 2026-09 |
| Knowledge Cutoff | March 2026 | April 2026 |
| Architecture | High-Velocity Open Reasoning MoE | Near-Astra unified reasoning model |
| Parameters | Confidential / 70B MoE | Confidential |
| Enterprise Rate Limits (RPM / TPM) | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud | 10,000 – 30,000 RPM (Tier 5 Enterprise) · 4,000,000 – 10,000,000 TPM |
| Long-Context Tier (>128K/200K) | Free across full context window (only KV-cache VRAM scales) | Flat rate ($2/1M in) across full 1000K window |
| Prompt Cache Policy & TTL | Automatic prefix KV-caching in vLLM / SGLang (0 cost) | Automatic prefix caching at $0.1/1M (no extra cache-write fee) |
| Computer Use / GUI Agent | API / CLI Tool-Use & DOM Agent ready (no raw pixel desktop click loop) | Supported (Screen coordinate grounding, browser & desktop GUI action loops) |
| MCP & Parallel Tool Calling | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema |
| Web Search Grounding & Sandbox | Supported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools | Native Web Search tool + Hosted Code Interpreter & File Search RAG |
| Official Fine-Tuning Support | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) | Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference (DPO) & Reinforcement Fine-Tuning (RFT) |
| Multimodal Token Billing | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) · Vision (~258–765 tokens per image tile) |
| Quantization & Min GPU VRAM | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 43 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 151 GB VRAM (Native BF16) | Cloud-Hosted Proprietary (FP8 / BF16 Tensor Core Cluster) · Zero Local VRAM Required (100% Serverless Cloud API) |
| Safety & Frontier Classification | Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma) | OpenAI Preparedness Framework Audited & System Card Published |
| Enterprise Compliance (ZDR/HIPAA/SOC2) | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control | SOC2 Type II · GDPR · Zero Data Retention (ZDR) & HIPAA BAA Available on Enterprise Tier |
| Input Modalities | text | text, vision |
| Output Modalities | text | text |
Step 3.7 Flash vs GPT-6.1 Sol: Risposte Rapide (FAQ)
Which is more intelligent, Step 3.7 Flash or GPT-6.1 Sol?
GPT-6.1 Sol is more intelligent. It scores 94 compared with 76 on the composite Intelligence Index.
Which model is faster?
Step 3.7 Flash is faster, generating 160 tokens per second compared with 120 tokens per second.
Which model is cheaper to run?
Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.00 per 1M tokens blended, compared with $1.47 (7:2:1 cache:input:output ratio).
Which model has lower latency?
Step 3.7 Flash has lower latency, with a time to first token of 0.25s compared with 1.12s.
Which model has a larger context window?
GPT-6.1 Sol has a larger context window, supporting 1M tokens compared with 256K tokens.
Verdetto
Choose Step 3.7 Flash for automazione enterprise, sviluppo software, agenti ia autonomi e pipeline di produzione stepfun, or choose GPT-6.1 Sol for automazione enterprise, sviluppo software, agenti ia autonomi e pipeline di produzione openai.
Domande Frequenti (FAQ)
Which is cheaper: Step 3.7 Flash or GPT-6.1 Sol?+
Step 3.7 Flash costs $0/1M input and $0/1M output tokens, while GPT-6.1 Sol costs $2/1M input and $10/1M output tokens.
Which model has a larger context window: Step 3.7 Flash or GPT-6.1 Sol?+
Step 3.7 Flash supports 256K tokens whereas GPT-6.1 Sol supports 1M tokens.
Understand key metrics like context window, token pricing, reasoning mode, and SWE-bench scores in our comprehensive AI glossary.
Related reading
- Aion-3.0 vs Aion-Mini: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonConfronta
- Aion-3.0 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonConfronta
- Aion-Mini vs Laguna XS 2.1: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonConfronta
- Aya Expanse 32B vs Llama 3.2 90B Vision: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonConfronta
- Aya Expanse 8B vs Command R+: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonConfronta
- Aya Expanse 8B vs Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonConfronta
Benchmark scores, token prices, and rate limits evolve rapidly as AI labs release model updates. Always verify current specifications and pricing on the official provider documentation.
Fonti ufficiali: StepFun & OpenAI Official Documentation