ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Mercury Edit 2 vs Step 3.7 Flash

Step 3.7 Flash comes out ahead, 62 to 35 on our weighted score, though Mercury Edit 2 is 10% cheaper per token.

  1. Inception

    Mercury Edit 2

    Released Mar 30, 2026

    35/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.25 / $0.75
    • Context32K
    Full specs Remove Mercury Edit 2
  2. Our pick

    StepFun

    Step 3.7 Flash

    Released May 29, 2026

    62/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.185 / $1.11
    • Context256K
    Full specs Remove Step 3.7 Flash

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Step 3.7 Flash is our pick

Step 3.7 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against Mercury Edit 2 (35). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Mercury Edit 2 wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

  • CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
  • Lowest priceMercury Edit 2Mercury Edit 2 $0.375 · Step 3.7 Flash $0.416 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextStep 3.7 FlashStep 3.7 Flash 256,000 · Mercury Edit 2 32,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsStep 3.7 FlashMercury Edit 2: Text · Step 3.7 Flash: Text, Images, Video
  • Self-hostingStep 3.7 FlashPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightMercury Edit 2Step 3.7 Flash
Price50%7068
Inputs & features30%070
Context window20%036
Overall100%35/10062/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Mercury Edit 2 vs Step 3.7 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationMercury Edit 2InceptionStep 3.7 FlashStepFun
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.25$0.185 (best)
Output$0.75 (best)$1.11
Cached input$0.025 (best)$0.037
Blended (3:1)$0.375 (best)$0.416
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Inception APIOfficial StepFun (Global) API
Limits
Context window32,000 tokens256,000 tokens (best)
Max output8,192 tokens256,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoYes
ReasoningNoYeslow · medium · high
Tool callingNoYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model IDmercury-edit-2step-3.7-flash
API providers118 (best)
ReleasedMar 30, 2026May 29, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—Mar 1, 2026
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Mercury Edit 2$4.00
  • Step 3.7 Flash$4.07
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Mercury Edit 2 or Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against Mercury Edit 2 (35). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Mercury Edit 2 wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

Which is cheaper, Mercury Edit 2 or Step 3.7 Flash?

Mercury Edit 2 is cheaper at $0.25 input / $0.75 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). Step 3.7 Flash costs $0.185 input / $1.11 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.375 per million tokens for Mercury Edit 2 versus $0.416 for Step 3.7 Flash (1.1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Mercury Edit 2 has not been scored yet and Step 3.7 Flash has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Mercury Edit 2 and Step 3.7 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Mercury Edit 2 does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.

Which has the bigger context window?

Step 3.7 Flash has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 32,000 for Mercury Edit 2. Maximum output per response: Mercury Edit 2 up to 8,192, Step 3.7 Flash up to 256,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Mercury Edit 2 accepts text; Step 3.7 Flash accepts text, images and video. Step 3.7 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Step 3.7 Flash publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Mercury Edit 2 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Step 3.7 Flash is the newest, released May 29, 2026. Mercury Edit 2 came out Mar 30, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Step 3.7 Flash Mar 1, 2026.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons