Pick GLM 5.2 for long-horizon agentic coding or project-level software engineering. 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. On a tight budget at scale, Step 3.7 Flash is the value pick.
GLM 5.2 (Z.ai) and Step 3.7 Flash (StepFun) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. GLM 5.2 is an open-weight reasoning model built for long-horizon coding and multi-step agent workflows — strong and cheap. 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 and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Price: Step 3.7 Flash is about 7× cheaper on input ($0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens vs $1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens) — a large enough gap that at scale it can be the single biggest line item in the decision.
Context window: GLM 5.2 holds 3.8× more — 1M (~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: GLM 5.2 is the newer model by about 18 days (released June 16, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Specifications
Spec
GLM 5.2
Step 3.7 Flash
Provider
Z.ai (China)
StepFun (China)
Released
June 16, 2026
May 29, 2026
Context window
1M (~1,500 pages)
256K (~393 pages)
Price (in/out)
$1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens
$0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Long-horizon agentic coding: GLM 5.2 — Its 1M window holds about 3.8× more than Step 3.7 Flash's 256K in a single prompt.
Project-level software engineering: GLM 5.2 — An open-weight reasoning model built for long-horizon coding and multi-step agent workflows — strong and cheap — and it carries the larger 1M context.
Tool use across long-running tasks: GLM 5.2 — An open-weight reasoning model built for long-horizon coding and multi-step agent workflows — strong and cheap — 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 — 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.
SCMP reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from DeepSeek and Moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size: Step 3.7 Flash — Step 3.7 Flash lists sCMP reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from DeepSeek and Moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size among its strengths; GLM 5.2 does not.
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 GLM 5.2 ($1.4/$4.4 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: GLM 5.2 — Its 1M 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 GLM 5.2, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: GLM 5.2 — Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is long-horizon agentic coding: GLM 5.2 — 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.
GLM 5.2: where it fits
An open-weight reasoning model built for long-horizon coding and multi-step agent workflows — strong and cheap. Released June 16, 2026 by Z.ai, it is built for long-horizon agentic coding, project-level software engineering, tool use across long-running tasks, and tops the open-weight intelligence index (SWE-bench Pro 62.1).
Its trade-offs are real: text-only — no native multimodal input, and new release with a limited third-party track record. At $1.4 in / $4.4 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
GLM 5.2 and Step 3.7 Flash overlap enough that the right pick depends on your specific job. Step 3.7 Flash costs less per token; GLM 5.2 holds the larger context; and each leads in its own area — GLM 5.2 for long-horizon agentic coding, Step 3.7 Flash for a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows. Rather than crowning one, run the same hard task through both once and let the results decide.
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM 5.2 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, GLM 5.2 leans toward long-horizon agentic coding 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, GLM 5.2 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper — $1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens vs $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens, roughly 7× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM 5.2 — 1M 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 GLM 5.2 and Step 3.7 Flash together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you GLM 5.2, 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, GLM 5.2 or Step 3.7 Flash?
GLM 5.2 — released June 16, 2026, about 18 days after Step 3.7 Flash.
GLM 5.2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
Z.ai · China | StepFun · China · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick GLM 5.2 for long-horizon agentic coding or project-level software engineering. 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. On a tight budget at scale, Step 3.7 Flash is the value pick.
GLM 5.2 (Z.ai) and Step 3.7 Flash (StepFun) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. GLM 5.2 is an open-weight reasoning model built for long-horizon coding and multi-step agent workflows — strong and cheap. 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 and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Price: Step 3.7 Flash is about 7× cheaper on input ($0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens vs $1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens) — a large enough gap that at scale it can be the single biggest line item in the decision.
▸Context window: GLM 5.2 holds 3.8× more — 1M (~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: GLM 5.2 is the newer model by about 18 days (released June 16, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
GLM 5.2
Step 3.7 Flash
Provider
Z.ai (China)
StepFun (China)
Released
June 16, 2026
May 29, 2026
Context window
1M (~1,500 pages)
256K (~393 pages)
Price (in/out)
$1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens
$0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Long-horizon agentic coding
GLM 5.2
Its 1M window holds about 3.8× more than Step 3.7 Flash's 256K in a single prompt.
Project-level software engineering
GLM 5.2
An open-weight reasoning model built for long-horizon coding and multi-step agent workflows — strong and cheap — and it carries the larger 1M context.
Tool use across long-running tasks
GLM 5.2
An open-weight reasoning model built for long-horizon coding and multi-step agent workflows — strong and cheap — 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
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.
SCMP reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from DeepSeek and Moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size
Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash lists sCMP reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from DeepSeek and Moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size among its strengths; GLM 5.2 does not.
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 GLM 5.2 ($1.4/$4.4 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
GLM 5.2
Its 1M 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 GLM 5.2, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ GLM 5.2
Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is long-horizon agentic coding
→ GLM 5.2
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.
GLM 5.2: where it fits
An open-weight reasoning model built for long-horizon coding and multi-step agent workflows — strong and cheap. Released June 16, 2026 by Z.ai, it is built for long-horizon agentic coding, project-level software engineering, tool use across long-running tasks, and tops the open-weight intelligence index (SWE-bench Pro 62.1).
Its trade-offs are real: text-only — no native multimodal input, and new release with a limited third-party track record. At $1.4 in / $4.4 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
GLM 5.2 and Step 3.7 Flash overlap enough that the right pick depends on your specific job. Step 3.7 Flash costs less per token; GLM 5.2 holds the larger context; and each leads in its own area — GLM 5.2 for long-horizon agentic coding, Step 3.7 Flash for a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows. Rather than crowning one, run the same hard task through both once and let the results decide.
Want both GLM 5.2 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, GLM 5.2 leans toward long-horizon agentic coding 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, GLM 5.2 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper — $1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens vs $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens, roughly 7× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM 5.2 — 1M 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 GLM 5.2 and Step 3.7 Flash together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you GLM 5.2, 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, GLM 5.2 or Step 3.7 Flash?
GLM 5.2 — released June 16, 2026, about 18 days 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.