Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Step 3.7 Flash's 59.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Step 3.7 Flash leads on agent interface. 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

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B C

Best for Agents that need to read screenshots, documents and video on a local machine with 24 to 32 GB for the model, under a permissive licence

Ahead on

  • Reach, 90 against 70
  • Risk, 55 against 45
  • Documentation and upkeep, 68 against 39

Watch for

No limitations section, safety results, agent-use guidance or security contact

Step 3.7 Flash C

Best for Teams with a GPU server or a provider account that want an open, long-context agent model with vision

Ahead on

  • Agent interface, 85 against 70

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.

Documentation and upkeep MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B +29

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B 68

Model card 8, it covers intended use, architecture and parameters but not limitations, context length, languages or a knowledge cut-off. Training data 0, none described. Last change 20, a commit on 3 November 2026. Responsiveness 20, OpenBMB answered 8 of 12 discussions. Version policy 10, earlier versions keep their repositories and the changes are dated and described. File health 10, the files agree. 8 + 0 + 20 + 20 + 10 + 10 = 68.

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.

Reach MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B +20

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B 90

Memory 25, since OpenBMB's IQ4_XS GGUF with its vision projector is 19.6 GB and needs about 23.6 GB with the fifth added, which fits 24 GB, while its Q4_K_M GGUF, 4-bit safetensors builds and Ollama entry need 32 GB. Runtimes 25, from vLLM 0.33.0, SGLang 0.5.23, Transformers 5.18.0 and later, llama.cpp's own MiniCPM-V 4.7 support and OpenBMB's entry on Ollama. Builds 15, OpenBMB publishes FP8, three 4-bit safetensors builds and GGUF. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 with nothing added. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, no inference provider is mapped. 25 + 25 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 90.

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.

Agent interface Step 3.7 Flash +15

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B 70

Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 10, the card shows the tools array going in but not the call coming back, and names no parser. Trained tool calling 20, the template renders several calls in one turn. Structured output 0, not documented or claimed. Reasoning control 10, enable_thinking per request, off by default, with the trace between markers. Context 10, 262,144 tokens native.

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.

Risk MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B +10

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B 55

File safety 25, safetensors and GGUF only, no Python in the main repository and no remote code needed. Provenance 15, the files come from the openbmb organisation OpenBMB's GitHub README links to, with a SHA-256 for every weight file. Safety evaluation 0 and agent guidance 0, nothing published on either, and the card has no limitations section. Licence risk 15, plain Apache 2.0. Security programme 0, no security.txt or SECURITY.md.

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.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runMiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3BStep 3.7 FlashEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%259070MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B +20
Risk20%205545MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B +10
Agent interface10%107085Step 3.7 Flash +15
Documentation and upkeep10%106839MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B +29
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100C 59.8/100

Facts side by side

FactMiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3BStep 3.7 Flash
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorOpenBMBStepFun
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0 (metadata and card; no LICENSE file)
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-11-032026-06-03
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked

Verdicts

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B

A vision-language cousin for images and video that fits a 24 to 32 GB machine from OpenBMB's own GGUF, under plain Apache 2.0, with a publisher that answers. The card says little about limits, training data or how tool calls come back, so test the tool format in your runtime before relying on it.

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

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B

  1. Start it with llama-server -hf openbmb/MiniCPM-V-4.7-35B-A3B-gguf:Q4_K_M --jinja, or ollama run openbmb/minicpm-v4.7:35b-a3b
  2. For image input in llama.cpp add mmproj-model-f16.gguf, or the 4x projector for more visual detail at a higher cost
  3. The GGUF files at the repository root have thinking off. Use the files in thinking/ when you want the trace
  4. With Transformers pass enable_thinking to apply_chat_template, and pass downsample_mode to both apply_chat_template and generate
  5. Use temperature 0.7, top_p 0.95 and top_k 100 in instruct mode, as the card recommends
  6. Check tool calls in your runtime first, since the card names no parser. The template uses the Qwen3.5 function-block format
  7. Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented

Step 3.7 Flash

  1. 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
  2. On vLLM or SGLang pass --tool-call-parser step3p5 --reasoning-parser step3p5
  3. 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
  4. For llama.cpp load the mmproj file from StepFun's GGUF repository for image input
  5. StepFun's API has two hosts. Use the one where your key was issued, api.stepfun.ai or api.stepfun.com
  6. The same model is on our StepFun API listing, with prices and terms

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B or Step 3.7 Flash?

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Step 3.7 Flash's 59.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Step 3.7 Flash leads on agent interface.

Other comparisons with MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B or Step 3.7 Flash

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.