Step 3.5 Flash vs Granite-4.0-H-Small
Too close to call on our weighted score (Granite-4.0-H-Small 63, Step 3.5 Flash 62). The right pick depends on what you value most.
StepFunStep 3.5 Flash
62/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.30
- Context256K
IBMGranite-4.0-H-Small
63/100- ECI—
- Price$0.064 / $0.265
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Granite-4.0-H-Small 63/100, Step 3.5 Flash 62/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Granite-4.0-H-Small on price and Step 3.5 Flash for long inputs. 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 priceGranite-4.0-H-SmallGranite-4.0-H-Small $0.114 · Step 3.5 Flash $0.15 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextStep 3.5 FlashStep 3.5 Flash 256,000 · Granite-4.0-H-Small 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsStep 3.5 Flash: Text · Granite-4.0-H-Small: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Step 3.5 Flash | Granite-4.0-H-Small |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 89 | 95 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 62/100 | 63/100 |
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 | Granite-4.0-H-SmallIBM |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 | $0.064 (best) |
| Output | $0.30 | $0.265 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.02 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.15 | $0.114 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official StepFun (Global) API | Official watsonx.ai API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 256,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · high | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | step-3.5-flash | ibm/granite-4-h-small |
| API providers | 8 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Jan 29, 2026 | Oct 2, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 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
- Granite-4.0-H-Small$1.17
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Step 3.5 Flash or Granite-4.0-H-Small?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Granite-4.0-H-Small 63/100, Step 3.5 Flash 62/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Granite-4.0-H-Small on price and Step 3.5 Flash for long inputs. 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 Granite-4.0-H-Small?
Granite-4.0-H-Small is cheaper at $0.064 input / $0.265 output per million tokens (official watsonx.ai API price). Step 3.5 Flash costs $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.114 per million tokens for Granite-4.0-H-Small versus $0.15 for Step 3.5 Flash (1.3× 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 Granite-4.0-H-Small has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Step 3.5 Flash and Granite-4.0-H-Small 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?
Step 3.5 Flash has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Granite-4.0-H-Small. Maximum output per response: Step 3.5 Flash up to 256,000, Granite-4.0-H-Small up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Step 3.5 Flash accepts text; Granite-4.0-H-Small accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Step 3.5 Flash is the newest, released Jan 29, 2026. Granite-4.0-H-Small came out Oct 2, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: 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
- 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
- Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Apertus 8BSwiss AI
- Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Ministral 3 3BMistral AI
