Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Google
Google
vs
Stepfun-ai

Gemini 2.0 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

Gemini 2.0 Flash wins:

  • Larger context window
  • Better at math
  • Supports vision

Step 3.5 Flash wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Has reasoning mode
Price Advantage
Step 3.5 Flash
Benchmark Advantage
Step 3.5 Flash
Context Window
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Speed
Step 3.5 Flash

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureGemini 2.0 FlashStep 3.5 Flash
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyGemini 2.0 FlashStep 3.5 Flash
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
AuthorGoogleStepfun-ai
ReleasedFeb 2025Jan 2026

Gemini 2.0 Flash Modalities

Input
textimagefileaudiovideo
Output
text

Step 3.5 Flash Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Gemini 2.0 Flash with:

Compare Step 3.5 Flash with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Gemini 2.0 Flash has cheaper input pricing at $0.10/M tokens. Step 3.5 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 Gemini 2.0 Flash's score of 13.6.
Gemini 2.0 Flash has a 1,048,576 token context window, while Step 3.5 Flash has a 256,000 token context window.
Gemini 2.0 Flash supports vision. Step 3.5 Flash does not support vision.