Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Step 3.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite comes out ahead, 85 to 62 and 61 on our weighted score, though Step 3.5 Flash is 14% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
85/100- ECI133.9
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1.05M
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.7-FlashX
61/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.40
- Context200K
StepFunStep 3.5 Flash
62/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.30
- Context256K
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is our pick
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 85/100 against Step 3.5 Flash (62) and GLM-4.7-FlashX (61). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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 priceStep 3.5 FlashStep 3.5 Flash $0.15 · GLM-4.7-FlashX $0.152 · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite $0.175 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 1,048,576 · Step 3.5 Flash 256,000 · GLM-4.7-FlashX 200,000 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · GLM-4.7-FlashX: Text · Step 3.5 Flash: Text
- Self-hostingGLM-4.7-FlashX and Step 3.5 FlashPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | GLM-4.7-FlashX | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 86 | 89 | 89 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 100 | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 61 | 32 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 85/100 | 61/100 | 62/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGoogle | GLM-4.7-FlashXZ.ai (Zhipu) | Step 3.5 FlashStepFun |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 133.9 | — | — |
| ECI rank | #118 of 148 | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.10 | $0.07 (best) | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.40 | $0.40 | $0.30 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.01 (best) | $0.01 (best) | $0.02 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.175 | $0.152 | $0.15 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Google API | Official Z.AI API | Official StepFun (Global) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 200,000 tokens | 256,000 tokens |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | No |
| PDFs | Yes | No | No |
| Audio | Yes | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yeslow · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | Open |
| API model ID | gemini-2.5-flash-lite | glm-4.7-flashx | step-3.5-flash |
| API providers | 20 (best) | 8 | 8 |
| Released | Jun 17, 2025 | Jan 19, 2026 | Jan 29, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jan 2025 | Apr 2025 | Jan 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite$1.80
- GLM-4.7-FlashX$1.50
- Step 3.5 Flash$1.60
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, GLM-4.7-FlashX or Step 3.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 85/100 against Step 3.5 Flash (62) and GLM-4.7-FlashX (61). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, GLM-4.7-FlashX or Step 3.5 Flash?
Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). GLM-4.7-FlashX costs $0.07 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price); Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Google API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.15 per million tokens for Step 3.5 Flash versus $0.152 for GLM-4.7-FlashX (1× as much) and $0.175 for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (1.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has an ECI of 133.9, GLM-4.7-FlashX has not been scored yet and Step 3.5 Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, GLM-4.7-FlashX and Step 3.5 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 256,000 for Step 3.5 Flash and 200,000 for GLM-4.7-FlashX. Maximum output per response: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite up to 65,536, GLM-4.7-FlashX up to 131,072, Step 3.5 Flash up to 256,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; GLM-4.7-FlashX accepts text; Step 3.5 Flash accepts text. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
GLM-4.7-FlashX and Step 3.5 Flash publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Step 3.5 Flash is the newest, released Jan 29, 2026. GLM-4.7-FlashX came out Jan 19, 2026; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite came out Jun 17, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Jan 2025, GLM-4.7-FlashX Apr 2025, Step 3.5 Flash Jan 2025.
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.
Related comparisons
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Mistral Small 3.2Mistral AI · ECI 131.7
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3 30B A3BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 136.2
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT OSS 20BOpenAI · ECI 137.8
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs DeepSeek V3 0324DeepSeek · ECI 135.9
- GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Devstral Small 2Mistral AI
- GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Seed 2.0 LiteByteDance Seed
