LFM3-1.7B vs Step 3.7 Flash
Liquid AI · US | StepFun · China · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick LFM3-1.7B for very small open-weight text model - about 1.73b parameters with a 256k-token context for on-device use or liquid says it can power agentic applications that used to need 9b parameters. 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, LFM3-1.7B is the value pick.
LFM3-1.7B (Liquid AI, US) and Step 3.7 Flash (StepFun, China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. LFM3-1.7B is liquid AI's October 27, 2026 on-device text model - about 1.73B parameters and 256K context, with open weights under a license capped at $10M annual revenue. 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
- ▸Context window: 256K tokens vs 256K — within a few percent of each other, so treat this as a tie and test on your own long inputs, since usable recall varies by model.
- ▸Recency: LFM3-1.7B is the newer model by about 5 months (released October 27, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
- ▸Ecosystem: this is a US-vs-China matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | LFM3-1.7B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Liquid AI (US) | StepFun (China) |
| Released | October 27, 2026 | May 29, 2026 |
| Context window | 256K tokens (~384 pages) | 256K (~393 pages) |
| Price (in/out) | Open weight (self-host / free) | $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens |
| Open weight? | Yes — self-hostable | 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
Very small open-weight text model - about 1.73B parameters with a 256K-token context for on-device use
LFM3-1.7B
Step 3.7 Flash is comparatively weak here — smaller ecosystem and less third-party documentation than the more established Chinese labs
Liquid says it can power agentic applications that used to need 9B parameters
LFM3-1.7B
Liquid AI's October 27, 2026 on-device text model - about 1.73B parameters and 256K context, with open weights under a license capped at $10M annual revenue — and it is the newer of the two.
Part of a six-model LFM3 family covering text, vision, audio, omni and decision tasks
LFM3-1.7B
LFM3-1.7B lists part of a six-model LFM3 family covering text, vision, audio, omni and decision tasks among its strengths; Step 3.7 Flash does not.
A 198B-parameter sparse MoE vision-language model (11B active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows
Step 3.7 Flash
LFM3-1.7B is comparatively weak here — liquid says it is not recommended for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning because of its size
SCMP reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from DeepSeek and Moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size
Step 3.7 Flash
LFM3-1.7B is comparatively weak here — lFM Open License v1.0 covers commercial use only below $10M annual revenue; larger firms need a paid license
Open weights (Apache 2.0) at a low per-token price
Step 3.7 Flash
LFM3-1.7B is comparatively weak here — no published per-token API price found
Lowest cost at scale
LFM3-1.7B
Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Step 3.7 Flash's $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ LFM3-1.7B
At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Step 3.7 Flash, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Step 3.7 Flash
Larger 256K window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is very small open-weight text model - about 1.73b parameters with a 256k-token context for on-device use
→ LFM3-1.7B
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.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ LFM3-1.7B or Step 3.7 Flash
Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
LFM3-1.7B: where it fits
Liquid AI's October 27, 2026 on-device text model - about 1.73B parameters and 256K context, with open weights under a license capped at $10M annual revenue. Released October 27, 2026 by Liquid AI, it is built for very small open-weight text model - about 1.73B parameters with a 256K-token context for on-device use, liquid says it can power agentic applications that used to need 9B parameters, part of a six-model LFM3 family covering text, vision, audio, omni and decision tasks, and supports 16 languages.
Its trade-offs are real: lFM Open License v1.0 covers commercial use only below $10M annual revenue; larger firms need a paid license, liquid says it is not recommended for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning because of its size, text-only; vision and audio need other LFM3 checkpoints, and no published per-token API price found. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
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
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." LFM3-1.7B (US) and Step 3.7 Flash (China) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. LFM3-1.7B is the cheaper option, which matters at volume. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.
Want both LFM3-1.7B 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.
See pricingFrequently asked questions
Is LFM3-1.7B 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, LFM3-1.7B leans toward very small open-weight text model - about 1.73b parameters with a 256k-token context for on-device use 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, LFM3-1.7B or Step 3.7 Flash?
LFM3-1.7B is cheaper — Open weight (self-host / free) vs $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens.
Which has the bigger context window?
Effectively neither — 256K tokens vs 256K is a difference of a few percent. Remember advertised ≠ usable: recall typically degrades before the ceiling.
Can I use both LFM3-1.7B and Step 3.7 Flash together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you LFM3-1.7B, 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, LFM3-1.7B or Step 3.7 Flash?
LFM3-1.7B — released October 27, 2026, about 5 months after Step 3.7 Flash.
Related comparisons
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.