Pick Llama 4 Maverick for open weights, 1m context or strong image + text understanding. 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, Llama 4 Maverick is the value pick.
Llama 4 Maverick (Meta, 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. Llama 4 Maverick is meta's open-weight 1M-context multimodal model for self-hosted deployments. 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
Context window: Llama 4 Maverick 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: Step 3.7 Flash is the newer model by about 14 months (released May 29, 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.
Specifications
Spec
Llama 4 Maverick
Step 3.7 Flash
Provider
Meta (US)
StepFun (China)
Released
April 2025
May 29, 2026
Context window
1M (~1,500 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, image, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Open weights, 1M context: Llama 4 Maverick — Its 1M window holds about 3.8× more than Step 3.7 Flash's 256K in a single prompt.
Strong image + text understanding: Llama 4 Maverick — Meta's open-weight 1M-context multimodal model for self-hosted deployments — and it carries the larger 1M context.
Self-hostable: Llama 4 Maverick — Llama 4 Maverick lists self-hostable 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 — StepFun's 198B MoE vision-language model built for coding and search agents - a distinct Chinese lab with genuinely competitive open weights — and it is the newer of the two.
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; Llama 4 Maverick does not.
Open weights (Apache 2.0) at a low per-token price: Step 3.7 Flash — Step 3.7 Flash lists open weights (Apache 2.0) at a low per-token price among its strengths; Llama 4 Maverick does not.
Lowest cost at scale: Llama 4 Maverick — 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.
Largest single-prompt input: Llama 4 Maverick — 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: Llama 4 Maverick — 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: Llama 4 Maverick — Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is open weights, 1m context: Llama 4 Maverick — 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: Llama 4 Maverick 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.
Llama 4 Maverick: where it fits
Meta's open-weight 1M-context multimodal model for self-hosted deployments. Released April 2025 by Meta, it is built for open weights, 1M context, strong image + text understanding, self-hostable, and 400B MoE, 17B active.
Its trade-offs are real: needs serious hardware to self-host, and trails closed frontier on reasoning. 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." Llama 4 Maverick (US) and Step 3.7 Flash (China) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. Llama 4 Maverick 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.
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 4 Maverick 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, Llama 4 Maverick leans toward open weights, 1m context 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, Llama 4 Maverick or Step 3.7 Flash?
Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper — Open weight (self-host / free) vs $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Maverick — 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 Llama 4 Maverick and Step 3.7 Flash together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Llama 4 Maverick, 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, Llama 4 Maverick or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash — released May 29, 2026, about 14 months after Llama 4 Maverick.
Llama 4 Maverick vs Step 3.7 Flash
Meta · US | StepFun · China · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Llama 4 Maverick for open weights, 1m context or strong image + text understanding. 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, Llama 4 Maverick is the value pick.
Llama 4 Maverick (Meta, 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. Llama 4 Maverick is meta's open-weight 1M-context multimodal model for self-hosted deployments. 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: Llama 4 Maverick 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: Step 3.7 Flash is the newer model by about 14 months (released May 29, 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
Llama 4 Maverick
Step 3.7 Flash
Provider
Meta (US)
StepFun (China)
Released
April 2025
May 29, 2026
Context window
1M (~1,500 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, image, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Open weights, 1M context
Llama 4 Maverick
Its 1M window holds about 3.8× more than Step 3.7 Flash's 256K in a single prompt.
Strong image + text understanding
Llama 4 Maverick
Meta's open-weight 1M-context multimodal model for self-hosted deployments — and it carries the larger 1M context.
Self-hostable
Llama 4 Maverick
Llama 4 Maverick lists self-hostable 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
StepFun's 198B MoE vision-language model built for coding and search agents - a distinct Chinese lab with genuinely competitive open weights — and it is the newer of the two.
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; Llama 4 Maverick does not.
Open weights (Apache 2.0) at a low per-token price
Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash lists open weights (Apache 2.0) at a low per-token price among its strengths; Llama 4 Maverick does not.
Lowest cost at scale
Llama 4 Maverick
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.
Largest single-prompt input
Llama 4 Maverick
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
→ Llama 4 Maverick
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
→ Llama 4 Maverick
Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is open weights, 1m context
→ Llama 4 Maverick
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
→ Llama 4 Maverick 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.
Llama 4 Maverick: where it fits
Meta's open-weight 1M-context multimodal model for self-hosted deployments. Released April 2025 by Meta, it is built for open weights, 1M context, strong image + text understanding, self-hostable, and 400B MoE, 17B active.
Its trade-offs are real: needs serious hardware to self-host, and trails closed frontier on reasoning. 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." Llama 4 Maverick (US) and Step 3.7 Flash (China) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. Llama 4 Maverick 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 Llama 4 Maverick 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.
Is Llama 4 Maverick 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, Llama 4 Maverick leans toward open weights, 1m context 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, Llama 4 Maverick or Step 3.7 Flash?
Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper — Open weight (self-host / free) vs $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Maverick — 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 Llama 4 Maverick and Step 3.7 Flash together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Llama 4 Maverick, 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, Llama 4 Maverick or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash — released May 29, 2026, about 14 months after Llama 4 Maverick.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.