Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Bytedance-seed
Bytedance-seed
vs
Stepfun-ai

Seed 1.6 Flash vs Step 3.5 Flash

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

OpenClaw

Deploy OpenClaw in Under 1 Minute We handle hosting, scaling, and maintenance

Key Takeaways

Seed 1.6 Flash wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Supports vision

Step 3.5 Flash wins:

  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
Price Advantage
Seed 1.6 Flash
Benchmark Advantage
Step 3.5 Flash
Context Window
Seed 1.6 Flash
Speed
Step 3.5 Flash

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureSeed 1.6 FlashStep 3.5 Flash
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertySeed 1.6 FlashStep 3.5 Flash
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
AuthorBytedance-seedStepfun-ai
ReleasedDec 2025Jan 2026

Seed 1.6 Flash Modalities

Input
imagetextvideo
Output
text

Step 3.5 Flash Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Seed 1.6 Flash with:

Compare Step 3.5 Flash with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Seed 1.6 Flash has cheaper input pricing at $0.07/M tokens. Seed 1.6 Flash has cheaper output pricing at $0.30/M tokens.
Step 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 31.6, compared to Seed 1.6 Flash's score of N/A.
Seed 1.6 Flash has a 262,144 token context window, while Step 3.5 Flash has a 256,000 token context window.
Seed 1.6 Flash supports vision. Step 3.5 Flash does not support vision.