Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.3 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index. Step 3.7 Flash costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Google
StepFunSummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 0 categories and Step 3.7 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Step 3.7 Flash leads 40.0 to 35.8.
- Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.18 / $1.11 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.50 for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 256K.
- Step 3.7 Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | Step 3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | StepFun | |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 37.3 |
| Released | 2025-04-17 | 2026-05-29 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 256K |
| Max output | 66K | 256K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.18 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $1.11 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 5 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Step 3.7 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220), Step 3.7 Flash: 40.0 (#150)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | 694.12 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| SciCode | — | 40% |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |
Reasoning Step 3.7 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286), Step 3.7 Flash: 21.6 (#219)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 1.1% | 2.3% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 39.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | — |
| DTBench | 76.5% | — |
| LMCA | 27.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
Math Step 3.7 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98), Step 3.7 Flash: 42.9 (#82)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 68.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | — |
| LMArena French | 1433 | — |
| LMArena German | 1418 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Step 3.7 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.3 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index. Step 3.7 Flash costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.18 per million input tokens and $1.11 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Flash lists at $0.30 and $2.50.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Step 3.7 Flash better for coding?
Step 3.7 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Step 3.7 Flash share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.7 Flash has 5.