Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash scores 59.8 (C) on agent readiness against DeepSeek-V3.2's 58.6 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. DeepSeek-V3.2 leads on risk. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 6359 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Teams with an eight-GPU server who want an MIT agent model with broad runtime support, or agents calling it through a hosted provider
Ahead on
- Risk, 50 against 45
Watch for
689.5 GB of FP8 files and no smaller build from DeepSeek or a runtime library, far beyond 107.4 GB
Best for Teams with a GPU server or a provider account that want an open, long-context agent model with vision
Ahead on
- Reach, 70 against 60
- Agent interface, 85 against 60
- Documentation and upkeep, 39 against 34
Watch for
About 131 GB to run at 4 bits with images, over a 128 GB machine's share
Why the edge
Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.
Agent interface Step 3.7 Flash +25
DeepSeek-V3.2 60
The chat template earns 10, as the format exists only as Python code to run. The tool-calling format earns 10 because DeepSeek documents the DSML format in code but names no runtime parser, which only vLLM's own recipe does. Trained tool calling earns the full 20 for several calls in one block. Structured output earns nothing, as JSON output isn't documented. Reasoning control earns 10 for thinking or chat mode per request with reasoning_content returned. Context earns 10 for 128K trained tokens.
Step 3.7 Flash 85
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (5,723 characters). Tool-calling format 25, the card names the parser to use in two runtimes, step3p5 in vLLM (with auto tool choice) and in SGLang, and both ship Step parsers in a release. Trained tool calling 20, the card presents tool orchestration as a main use, with multi-turn results, and the template renders every call in a turn. Structured output 0, Nothing on the card about JSON or schema-constrained output for the weights. Reasoning control 10, the template has a reasoning_effort setting and keeps reasoning_content, and the card names the step3p5 reasoning parser for vLLM and SGLang, which returns the reasoning apart from the answer. Context 10, 256K tokens per the card, and 262,144 positions in config.json. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 85.
Reach Step 3.7 Flash +10
DeepSeek-V3.2 60
Memory earns nothing, because the only build from DeepSeek or a runtime's library is the 689.5 GB FP8 release, which needs about 827 GB with the fifth added. Runtimes earn the full 25 for released model code in vLLM, SGLang, llama.cpp and Transformers, and for Ollama 0.40.14, whose llama.cpp pin (b11963) carries the deepseek32 architecture with no gate in Ollama's server code, though its library entry stays retired; nothing from LM Studio. Builds earn 10 for the single FP8 precision DeepSeek publishes. Terms earn the full 15 for MIT with nothing added, and download the full 10 since the repository isn't gated. Hosted earns nothing, since DeepSeek's own API moved to V4 on 24 April 2026 and Hugging Face maps only DeepInfra as live for it on 4 November (Novita and Featherless in error), where the line needs two providers. Fireworks' model page says Serverless Not Supported and lists it only for on-demand deployment on dedicated GPUs, which is renting the hardware rather than calling a served model.
Step 3.7 Flash 70
Memory 5, the smallest build at 4 bits is StepFun's IQ4_XS GGUF, 104.99 GB with the 3.97 GB projector, and 108.96 GB × 1.2 = 130.8 GB, over what the reference machine can give a model and within 256 GB. The IQ3 and Q3 builds are below 4 bits and aren't read. Runtimes 20, Released vLLM 0.33.0, SGLang 0.5.23 and Transformers 5.22.2 have the step3p7 model, and llama.cpp b12242 has the architecture, with StepFun's own GGUF. Four at 5 each, and the card documents all four. Builds 15, StepFun publishes GGUF at five quantised precisions, an FP8 build and an NVFP4 build. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the card's metadata and its licence section, an OSI licence with nothing added. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for all four repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 5, StepFun's own API serves it, per the card and our StepFun API listing, and Featherless and DeepInfra are live for it on Hugging Face. 5 + 20 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 5 = 70.
Risk DeepSeek-V3.2 +5
DeepSeek-V3.2 50
File safety earns 15, safetensors only but 10 off because prompts are built by running DeepSeek's Python from the repository. Provenance earns the full 15 for the deepseek-ai organisation and a SHA-256 on every shard. Safety evaluation earns nothing, since no results are published anywhere. Agent guidance earns nothing, since the notes about the parser and the developer role are usage notes, read alike for all three DeepSeek listings. Licence risk keeps the full 15 for plain MIT. The security programme earns 5 for the security@deepseek.com reporting address on DeepSeek's site, with no public advisories.
Step 3.7 Flash 45
File safety 15, safetensors and GGUF only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, the files sit in the stepfun-ai organisation, which the card's StepFun platform and model page belong to (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 0, the card has no limitations section and gives no guidance on prompt injection, instruction priority, refusals or safeguards. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, threshold or change clause. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw on the card, and our StepFun API listing found no security.txt, bug bounty or disclosure policy. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 45.
Documentation and upkeep Step 3.7 Flash +5
DeepSeek-V3.2 34
The model card earns 14 when read with DeepSeek's own V3.2 model card PDF, which adds intended use and a parameter count, leaving languages and a knowledge cut-off missing. Training data earns 5, a general description with no cut-off. Last change earns 5, as nothing in the repository has changed since 1 December 2025 (338 days on 4 November) and DeepSeek's deepseek-recipe has no V3.2 code. Responsiveness earns nothing, with no reply from a deepseek-ai member in any of the 40 most recent discussions. Version policy earns 5 for earlier versions kept apart without dated notes. File health earns 5 because loading and parsing reports wait without a reply.
Step 3.7 Flash 39
Model card 14, Intended use, the architecture, the parameters, the context and the language (in the metadata) are on the card. Training data 0, Nothing on the card about the training data. Last change 10, the last commit, on 3 June 2026, fixed the modelling code, 160 days before this check and within 180. Responsiveness 0, none of the 11 most recent discussions that aren't pull requests (29 May to 24 June 2026) has a reply from a stepfun-ai member, counted on 10 November by author flags and dates with a script, text not read. Version policy 5, Step-3.5-Flash stays in its own repositories and 3.7 came out in new ones, with no dated note on the older cards that we read. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the architecture and the context, and June commits fixed the modelling code. 14 + 0 + 10 + 0 + 5 + 10 = 39.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | DeepSeek-V3.2 | Step 3.7 Flash | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 60 | 70 | Step 3.7 Flash +10 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 45 | DeepSeek-V3.2 +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 60 | 85 | Step 3.7 Flash +25 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 34 | 39 | Step 3.7 Flash +5 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 58.6/100 | C 59.8/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | DeepSeek-V3.2 | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | DeepSeek | StepFun |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 (metadata and card; no LICENSE file) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2025-12-01 | 2026-06-03 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | 2.3/5 (4) | none |
Verdicts
DeepSeek-V3.2
DeepSeek-V3.2 is an MIT-licensed reasoning model trained for parallel tool calls, with thinking chosen per request, for long agent work. It needs about 690 GB of FP8 files, eight 80 GB GPUs in vLLM's recipe and prompts built from DeepSeek's Python. The main risk is neglect, with no file changes since December 2025 and no safety evaluation.
Step 3.7 Flash
A capable open agent model with a clean licence, every kind of build and four released runtimes. Two things hold it back: it's a little too big for a 128 GB machine at 4 bits, whatever the card says, and StepFun has gone quiet on the repository since June. No safety results, limitations or data description.
Before you call either
DeepSeek-V3.2
- Start it with vLLM's recipe, vllm serve deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3.2 --tensor-parallel-size 8 --tokenizer-mode deepseek_v32 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser deepseek_v32 --reasoning-parser deepseek_v3
- It doesn't fit the 107.4 GB reference machine at any qualifying build, so call DeepInfra (deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3.2) or deploy it on Fireworks instead
- Outside vLLM, build prompts with encoding/encoding_dsv32.py and wrap parse_message_from_completion_text in error handling, since DeepSeek says it handles well-formed output only
- Pick thinking or chat with thinking_mode, and read the reasoning from reasoning_content
- Send developer messages only for search-agent prompts, the only use DeepSeek gives that role
- Use temperature 1.0 and top_p 0.95 and keep prompts within 128K tokens
Step 3.7 Flash
- On a 128 GB machine the 4-bit GGUF won't fit with a working context. Use StepFun's API or a provider, or a server
- On vLLM or SGLang pass
--tool-call-parser step3p5 --reasoning-parser step3p5 - The card's commands pass trust-remote-code. Released Transformers 5.22.2 has the model built in if you'd rather not run the repository's code
- For llama.cpp load the mmproj file from StepFun's GGUF repository for image input
- StepFun's API has two hosts. Use the one where your key was issued,
api.stepfun.aiorapi.stepfun.com - The same model is on our StepFun API listing, with prices and terms
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, DeepSeek-V3.2 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash scores 59.8 (C) on agent readiness against DeepSeek-V3.2's 58.6 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. DeepSeek-V3.2 leads on risk.
Other comparisons with DeepSeek-V3.2 or Step 3.7 Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Agents-A1-4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Arete-27B vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Arete-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- BigBang-v1 vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- BigBang-v1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Carbon-X vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Carbon-X vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Cola2 vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Cola2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Devstral Small 2
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Gemma 4 12B IT
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Gemma 4 31B IT
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-4.5-Air
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-5.3
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs gpt-oss-120b
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs gpt-oss-20b
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Granite 4.2 30B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Granite 4.2 3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Granite 4.2 8B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Hy3
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Inkling
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Inkling-Small
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Kimi K3
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Kolibri-1
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Kronos
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Laguna M.1
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Laguna S 2.1
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Laguna XS 2.1
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM3-VL-2B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LongCat-2.5
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Mistral Large 4
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs North Mini Code 1.0
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs occamy-1.0
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs SmolLM3-3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs ZAYA1-8B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Devstral Small 2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-5.3 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- gpt-oss-120b vs Step 3.7 Flash
- gpt-oss-20b vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Hy3 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Inkling-Small vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Inkling vs Step 3.7 Flash
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kimi K3 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kolibri-1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kronos vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Laguna M.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LBS-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-1.7B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LongCat-2.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Mistral Large 4 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- occamy-1.0 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Recursive Flint vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ripple-65B Preview vs Step 3.7 Flash
- SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview vs Step 3.7 Flash
- SmolLM3-3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Spark-X2.6-4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Step 3.7 Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Step 3.7 Flash vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- Step 3.7 Flash vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Step 3.7 Flash vs ZAYA1-8B
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/deepseek-v3-2-vs-step-3-7-flash.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/deepseek-v3-2.json·/api/v1/tools/step-3-7-flash.json - From a terminal
anchor compare deepseek-v3-2 step-3-7-flash(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "deepseek-v3-2", "b": "step-3-7-flash"}at/mcp, no key