Step 3.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite comes out ahead, 73 to 62 on our weighted score, though Step 3.5 Flash is 3.8× cheaper per token.
StepFunStep 3.5 Flash
62/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.30
- Context256K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 3.1 Flash Lite
73/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $1.50
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is our pick
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 73/100 against Step 3.5 Flash (62). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Step 3.5 Flash 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 priceStep 3.5 FlashStep 3.5 Flash $0.15 · Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $0.563 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGemini 3.1 Flash Lite 1,048,576 · Step 3.5 Flash 256,000 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 3.1 Flash LiteStep 3.5 Flash: Text · Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingStep 3.5 FlashPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Step 3.5 Flash | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 89 | 62 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 100 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 62/100 | 73/100 |
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 | Step 3.5 FlashStepFun | Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 (best) | $0.25 |
| Output | $0.30 (best) | $1.50 |
| Cached input | $0.02 (best) | $0.025 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.15 (best) | $0.563 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official StepFun (Global) API | Official Google API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 256,000 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · high | Yesminimal · low · medium · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | step-3.5-flash | gemini-3.1-flash-lite |
| API providers | 8 | 23 (best) |
| Released | Jan 29, 2026 | May 7, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jan 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.
- Step 3.5 Flash$1.60
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite$5.50
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Step 3.5 Flash or Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 73/100 against Step 3.5 Flash (62). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Step 3.5 Flash 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, Step 3.5 Flash or Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?
Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs $0.25 input / $1.50 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 $0.563 for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (3.8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Step 3.5 Flash has not been scored yet and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Step 3.5 Flash and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 256,000 for Step 3.5 Flash. Maximum output per response: Step 3.5 Flash up to 256,000, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Step 3.5 Flash accepts text; Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Step 3.5 Flash publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is the newest, released May 7, 2026. Step 3.5 Flash came out Jan 29, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Step 3.5 Flash Jan 2025, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 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
- Add GLM-4.7-FlashXThree-way comparison
- Step 3.5 Flash vs GLM-4.7-FlashXZ.ai (Zhipu)
- Step 3.5 Flash vs Devstral Small 2Mistral AI
- Step 3.5 Flash vs Seed 2.0 LiteByteDance Seed
- Step 3.5 Flash vs Trendyol Asure 12BTrendyol
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs MiMo-V2.5-ProXiaomi
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Ornith 1.5 35B A3BDeepReinforce
