Skip to main content
ShippedNo vapor

The AI that actually shipped

VerdictStepFun (stepfun-ai)

Editor's first pass (AI-assisted)

Scored by an AI research pass from the linked sources; a human editor will re-score it. How we score →

Real4.0Apache 2.0, ungated, with FP8, NVFP4 and GGUF variants listed in the repository.
Useful3.5Aimed at agent loops that mix images, search and coding at high throughput.
Notable3.5462 likes; a mid-sized entrant in a crowded field.
Novel3.0Three selectable reasoning levels and a vision encoder on a 196B backbone.
Hype gap▼ −0.5 under
Shipped

Readers

Upvotes count the readers who want this seen. Ratings are 1 to 5 scores on the four dimensions; the rating count is the number of readers who rated it. The editor’s score is shown on its own and is the headline figure. Once readers sign in, their ratings will pull a score toward the readers’ view only as more of them rate, and a reader mean from fewer than 5 ratings is too few to print. How ranking works →

StepFun releases Step 3.7 Flash, a 198B vision-language MoE with 11B active parameters

Step 3.7 Flash is a 198B sparse MoE vision-language model with about 11B active parameters and 256k context, under Apache 2.0.

StepFun published Step 3.7 Flash. The card describes a 198B-parameter sparse mixture-of-experts vision-language model: a 196B language backbone plus a 1.8B vision encoder, with about 11B parameters active per token. It claims up to 400 tokens per second, a 256k context window and three reasoning levels (low, medium, high).

The card targets agentic work that combines perception, search and reasoning, such as parsing long financial reports or running concurrent coding agents. It reports 56.3 on SWE-Bench Pro, 59.5 on Terminal-Bench 2.1 and 67.1 on ClawEval-1.1. All are StepFun's own figures, and it says Terminal-Bench and GDPVal-AA show areas for future work.

The licence is Apache 2.0.

The card gives no release date; the date used is the Hugging Face repo creation date.

A card that admits where it trails. Take the leading claims with the same grain of salt.

Sources

Editor's first pass (AI-assisted)

Primary evidence

Comments