Claude Opus 4.7 vs Step 3.5 Flash
Claude Opus 4.7 (2026) and Step 3.5 Flash (2026) are frontier-tier reasoning models from Anthropic and StepFun. Claude Opus 4.7 ships a 1M-token context window, while Step 3.5 Flash ships a 256K-token context window. On pricing, Step 3.5 Flash costs $0.1/1M input tokens versus $5/1M for the alternative. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit.
Step 3.5 Flash is ~4900% cheaper at $0.1/1M; pay for Claude Opus 4.7 only for coding workflow support.
Specs
| Released | 2026-04-16 | 2026-01-29 |
| Context window | 1M | 256K |
| Parameters | — | 196B (11B active) |
| Architecture | decoder only | mixture of experts |
| License | Proprietary | Open Source |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-01 | - |
Pricing and availability
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Step 3.5 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $5/1M tokens | $0.1/1M tokens |
| Output price | $25/1M tokens | $0.3/1M tokens |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Step 3.5 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | ||
| Multimodal | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Function calling | ||
| Tool use | ||
| Structured outputs | ||
| Code execution |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint differs most on vision: Claude Opus 4.7, multimodal input: Claude Opus 4.7, function calling: Claude Opus 4.7, tool use: Claude Opus 4.7, structured outputs: Claude Opus 4.7, and code execution: Claude Opus 4.7. Both models share reasoning mode, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
For cost, Claude Opus 4.7 lists $5/1M input and $25/1M output tokens, while Step 3.5 Flash lists $0.1/1M input and $0.3/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. A 70/30 input-output blend puts Step 3.5 Flash lower by about $10.84 per million blended tokens. Availability is 5 providers versus 1, so concentration risk also matters.
Choose Claude Opus 4.7 when coding workflow support, larger context windows, and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose Step 3.5 Flash when provider fit and lower input-token cost are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 or Step 3.5 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.7 supports 1M tokens, while Step 3.5 Flash supports 256K tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Step 3.5 Flash?
Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper on tracked token pricing. Claude Opus 4.7 costs $5/1M input and $25/1M output tokens. Step 3.5 Flash costs $0.1/1M input and $0.3/1M output tokens. Provider discounts or batch pricing can still change the final bill.
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Step 3.5 Flash open source?
Claude Opus 4.7 is listed under Proprietary. Step 3.5 Flash is listed under Open Source. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for vision, Claude Opus 4.7 or Step 3.5 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.7 has the clearer documented vision signal in this comparison. If vision is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for multimodal input, Claude Opus 4.7 or Step 3.5 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.7 has the clearer documented multimodal input signal in this comparison. If multimodal input is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Claude Opus 4.7 and Step 3.5 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.7 is available on Anthropic, AWS Bedrock, GCP Vertex AI, Microsoft Foundry, and OpenRouter. Step 3.5 Flash is available on OpenRouter. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-04-24. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.