Muse Spark 1.2 vs Step 3.7 Flash: which should you choose in 2026?
Muse Spark 1.2 (by Meta) and Step 3.7 Flash (by Stepfun) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Step 3.7 Flash is about 4.6× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.44 vs $2.00 per 1M tokens).
Muse Spark 1.2 has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).
Choose Muse Spark 1.2 if…
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
Choose Step 3.7 Flash if…
- • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.2 | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A long-horizon software-engineering benchmark with 113 original tasks graded by hand-written tests. Pass@1 | 55.0%±2.0 DataCurve | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | 90.4% Artificial Analysis | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | 45.5% Artificial Analysis | — |
A contamination-resistant benchmark refreshed on a fixed release cadence. Scores from different LiveBench releases must never be compared as the same protocol. Mean of category averages | 78.0% LiveBench | — |
Benchmark sources
- DeepSWE 1.1 Leaderboard
- GPQA Diamond Benchmark Leaderboard
- Humanity's Last Exam Benchmark Leaderboard
- LiveBench 2026-06-25 Leaderboard
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Muse Spark 1.2 | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Meta | Stepfun |
| API provider | Meta | StepFun |
| Input context | 1,048,576 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Maximum output | — | 256,000 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Aug 5, 2026 | May 28, 2026 |
| License | — | — |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image, Video, File, Audio | Text, Image, Video |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Tool use | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $1.25 | $0.20 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $4.25 | $1.15 |
| Blended 3:1 input/output | $2.00 | $0.44 |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Aug 5, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Muse Spark 1.2 from Meta with Step 3.7 Flash from Stepfun? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Muse Spark 1.2 | Step 3.7 Flash | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Muse Spark 1.2 vs Step 3.7 Flash FAQ
Which is better, Muse Spark 1.2 or Step 3.7 Flash?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Step 3.7 Flash is about 4.6× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.44 vs $2.00 per 1M tokens). Muse Spark 1.2 has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
Step 3.7 Flash is about 4.6× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.44 vs $2.00 per 1M tokens).
Which model supports more context?
Muse Spark 1.2 has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).
Can I switch between Muse Spark 1.2 and Step 3.7 Flash?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.