Pick Fugu Max for cost-efficient multi-agent orchestration — undercuts claude sonnet 5 and kimi k3 on output cost by a claimed 40-60% or 1m-token context window at $2/$6 per million tokens. Pick Step 3.7 Flash for a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows or scmp reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from deepseek and moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size. Choose Step 3.7 Flash if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Fugu Max if you want a managed API.
Fugu Max (Sakana AI) and Step 3.7 Flash (StepFun) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Fugu Max is sakana AI's cost-first multi-agent orchestration model — not a single trained model, but a routed pool of models behind one API, priced at $2/$6 per million tokens. Step 3.7 Flash is stepFun's 198B MoE vision-language model built for coding and search agents - a distinct Chinese lab with genuinely competitive open weights. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Price: Step 3.7 Flash is about 10× cheaper on input ($0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens vs $2/$6 per 1M tokens) — a large enough gap that at scale it can be the single biggest line item in the decision.
Context window: Fugu Max holds 3.8× more — 1M tokens (~1,500 pages) vs 256K (~393 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Recency: Fugu Max is the newer model by about 3 months (released September 10, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Specifications
Spec
Fugu Max
Step 3.7 Flash
Provider
Sakana AI (Global)
StepFun (China)
Released
September 10, 2026
May 29, 2026
Context window
1M tokens (~1,500 pages)
256K (~393 pages)
Price (in/out)
$2/$6 per 1M tokens
$0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Cost-efficient multi-agent orchestration — undercuts Claude Sonnet 5 and Kimi K3 on output cost by a claimed 40-60%: Fugu Max — Sakana AI's cost-first multi-agent orchestration model — not a single trained model, but a routed pool of models behind one API, priced at $2/$6 per million tokens — and it carries the larger 1M tokens context.
1M-token context window at $2/$6 per million tokens: Fugu Max — Its 1M tokens window holds about 3.8× more than Step 3.7 Flash's 256K in a single prompt.
OpenAI-compatible API — drop-in replacement for single-model integrations: Fugu Max — Sakana AI's cost-first multi-agent orchestration model — not a single trained model, but a routed pool of models behind one API, priced at $2/$6 per million tokens — and it is the newer of the two.
A 198B-parameter sparse MoE vision-language model (11B active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows: Step 3.7 Flash — Fugu Max is comparatively weak here — not a single trained model — Sakana describes Fugu as "a Multi-Agent System, Delivered as One Model" that routes tasks across a pool of other models, so raw benchmark comparisons to monolithic models can be misleading
SCMP reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from DeepSeek and Moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size: Step 3.7 Flash — StepFun's 198B MoE vision-language model built for coding and search agents - a distinct Chinese lab with genuinely competitive open weights — and it runs cheaper at $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens.
Open weights (Apache 2.0) at a low per-token price: Step 3.7 Flash — At $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens it undercuts Fugu Max ($2/$6 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.
Lowest cost at scale: Step 3.7 Flash — At $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input: Fugu Max — Its 1M tokens window is about 3.8× larger than Step 3.7 Flash's 256K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: Step 3.7 Flash — At $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens it undercuts Fugu Max, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: Fugu Max — Larger 1M tokens window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs: Step 3.7 Flash — Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Fugu Max is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is cost-efficient multi-agent orchestration — undercuts claude sonnet 5 and kimi k3 on output cost by a claimed 40-60%: Fugu Max — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows: Step 3.7 Flash — That is its strongest area.
Fugu Max: where it fits
Sakana AI's cost-first multi-agent orchestration model — not a single trained model, but a routed pool of models behind one API, priced at $2/$6 per million tokens. Released September 10, 2026 by Sakana AI, it is built for cost-efficient multi-agent orchestration — undercuts Claude Sonnet 5 and Kimi K3 on output cost by a claimed 40-60%, 1M-token context window at $2/$6 per million tokens, and openAI-compatible API — drop-in replacement for single-model integrations.
Its trade-offs are real: not a single trained model — Sakana describes Fugu as "a Multi-Agent System, Delivered as One Model" that routes tasks across a pool of other models, so raw benchmark comparisons to monolithic models can be misleading, the cheaper sibling to Fugu Ultra v2 — lower ceiling on the hardest reasoning tasks, and a young, first-generation product from Sakana AI's orchestration approach, unproven at scale versus established frontier labs. At $2 in / $6 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
Step 3.7 Flash: where it fits
StepFun's 198B MoE vision-language model built for coding and search agents - a distinct Chinese lab with genuinely competitive open weights. Released May 29, 2026 by StepFun, it is built for a 198B-parameter sparse MoE vision-language model (11B active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows, sCMP reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from DeepSeek and Moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size, open weights (Apache 2.0) at a low per-token price, and includes a 1.8B vision encoder for image understanding alongside text.
Its trade-offs: stepFun is a newer, less established lab than DeepSeek, Alibaba, or Moonshot, benchmark 'outshines rivals' claims are from press coverage of specific tests, not a full independent leaderboard sweep, and smaller ecosystem and less third-party documentation than the more established Chinese labs. At $0.2 in / $1.15 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Step 3.7 Flash gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Fugu Max gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Frequently asked questions
Is Fugu Max or Step 3.7 Flash better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Fugu Max leans toward cost-efficient multi-agent orchestration — undercuts claude sonnet 5 and kimi k3 on output cost by a claimed 40-60% while Step 3.7 Flash leans toward a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Fugu Max or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Fugu Max is API-metered at $2/$6 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Fugu Max — 1M tokens vs 256K, about 3.8× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Fugu Max and Step 3.7 Flash together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Fugu Max, Step 3.7 Flash and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Fugu Max or Step 3.7 Flash?
Fugu Max — released September 10, 2026, about 3 months after Step 3.7 Flash.
Fugu Max vs Step 3.7 Flash
Sakana AI · Global | StepFun · China · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Fugu Max for cost-efficient multi-agent orchestration — undercuts claude sonnet 5 and kimi k3 on output cost by a claimed 40-60% or 1m-token context window at $2/$6 per million tokens. Pick Step 3.7 Flash for a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows or scmp reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from deepseek and moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size. Choose Step 3.7 Flash if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Fugu Max if you want a managed API.
Fugu Max (Sakana AI) and Step 3.7 Flash (StepFun) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Fugu Max is sakana AI's cost-first multi-agent orchestration model — not a single trained model, but a routed pool of models behind one API, priced at $2/$6 per million tokens. Step 3.7 Flash is stepFun's 198B MoE vision-language model built for coding and search agents - a distinct Chinese lab with genuinely competitive open weights. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Price: Step 3.7 Flash is about 10× cheaper on input ($0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens vs $2/$6 per 1M tokens) — a large enough gap that at scale it can be the single biggest line item in the decision.
▸Context window: Fugu Max holds 3.8× more — 1M tokens (~1,500 pages) vs 256K (~393 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Recency: Fugu Max is the newer model by about 3 months (released September 10, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Fugu Max
Step 3.7 Flash
Provider
Sakana AI (Global)
StepFun (China)
Released
September 10, 2026
May 29, 2026
Context window
1M tokens (~1,500 pages)
256K (~393 pages)
Price (in/out)
$2/$6 per 1M tokens
$0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Cost-efficient multi-agent orchestration — undercuts Claude Sonnet 5 and Kimi K3 on output cost by a claimed 40-60%
Fugu Max
Sakana AI's cost-first multi-agent orchestration model — not a single trained model, but a routed pool of models behind one API, priced at $2/$6 per million tokens — and it carries the larger 1M tokens context.
1M-token context window at $2/$6 per million tokens
Fugu Max
Its 1M tokens window holds about 3.8× more than Step 3.7 Flash's 256K in a single prompt.
OpenAI-compatible API — drop-in replacement for single-model integrations
Fugu Max
Sakana AI's cost-first multi-agent orchestration model — not a single trained model, but a routed pool of models behind one API, priced at $2/$6 per million tokens — and it is the newer of the two.
A 198B-parameter sparse MoE vision-language model (11B active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows
Step 3.7 Flash
Fugu Max is comparatively weak here — not a single trained model — Sakana describes Fugu as "a Multi-Agent System, Delivered as One Model" that routes tasks across a pool of other models, so raw benchmark comparisons to monolithic models can be misleading
SCMP reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from DeepSeek and Moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size
Step 3.7 Flash
StepFun's 198B MoE vision-language model built for coding and search agents - a distinct Chinese lab with genuinely competitive open weights — and it runs cheaper at $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens.
Open weights (Apache 2.0) at a low per-token price
Step 3.7 Flash
At $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens it undercuts Fugu Max ($2/$6 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.
Lowest cost at scale
Step 3.7 Flash
At $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input
Fugu Max
Its 1M tokens window is about 3.8× larger than Step 3.7 Flash's 256K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Step 3.7 Flash
At $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens it undercuts Fugu Max, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Fugu Max
Larger 1M tokens window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ Step 3.7 Flash
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Fugu Max is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is cost-efficient multi-agent orchestration — undercuts claude sonnet 5 and kimi k3 on output cost by a claimed 40-60%
→ Fugu Max
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows
→ Step 3.7 Flash
That is its strongest area.
Fugu Max: where it fits
Sakana AI's cost-first multi-agent orchestration model — not a single trained model, but a routed pool of models behind one API, priced at $2/$6 per million tokens. Released September 10, 2026 by Sakana AI, it is built for cost-efficient multi-agent orchestration — undercuts Claude Sonnet 5 and Kimi K3 on output cost by a claimed 40-60%, 1M-token context window at $2/$6 per million tokens, and openAI-compatible API — drop-in replacement for single-model integrations.
Its trade-offs are real: not a single trained model — Sakana describes Fugu as "a Multi-Agent System, Delivered as One Model" that routes tasks across a pool of other models, so raw benchmark comparisons to monolithic models can be misleading, the cheaper sibling to Fugu Ultra v2 — lower ceiling on the hardest reasoning tasks, and a young, first-generation product from Sakana AI's orchestration approach, unproven at scale versus established frontier labs. At $2 in / $6 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
Step 3.7 Flash: where it fits
StepFun's 198B MoE vision-language model built for coding and search agents - a distinct Chinese lab with genuinely competitive open weights. Released May 29, 2026 by StepFun, it is built for a 198B-parameter sparse MoE vision-language model (11B active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows, sCMP reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from DeepSeek and Moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size, open weights (Apache 2.0) at a low per-token price, and includes a 1.8B vision encoder for image understanding alongside text.
Its trade-offs: stepFun is a newer, less established lab than DeepSeek, Alibaba, or Moonshot, benchmark 'outshines rivals' claims are from press coverage of specific tests, not a full independent leaderboard sweep, and smaller ecosystem and less third-party documentation than the more established Chinese labs. At $0.2 in / $1.15 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Step 3.7 Flash gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Fugu Max gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both Fugu Max and Step 3.7 Flash without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Fugu Max leans toward cost-efficient multi-agent orchestration — undercuts claude sonnet 5 and kimi k3 on output cost by a claimed 40-60% while Step 3.7 Flash leans toward a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Fugu Max or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Fugu Max is API-metered at $2/$6 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Fugu Max — 1M tokens vs 256K, about 3.8× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Fugu Max and Step 3.7 Flash together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Fugu Max, Step 3.7 Flash and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Fugu Max or Step 3.7 Flash?
Fugu Max — released September 10, 2026, about 3 months after Step 3.7 Flash.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.