Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Google
Google
vs
S
Stepfun-ai

Gemma 3 27B 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

Gemma 3 27B wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Better at math
  • Supports vision

Step 3.5 Flash wins:

  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Has reasoning mode
Price Advantage
Gemma 3 27B
Benchmark Advantage
Step 3.5 Flash
Context Window
Step 3.5 Flash
Speed
Step 3.5 Flash

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureGemma 3 27BStep 3.5 Flash
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyGemma 3 27BStep 3.5 Flash
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorGoogleStepfun-ai
ReleasedMar 2025Jan 2026

Gemma 3 27B Modalities

Input
textimage
Output
text

Step 3.5 Flash Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Gemma 3 27B with:

Compare Step 3.5 Flash with:

See all model comparisons

Frequently Asked Questions

Gemma 3 27B has cheaper input pricing at $0.08/M tokens. Gemma 3 27B has cheaper output pricing at $0.16/M tokens.
Step 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 31.6, compared to Gemma 3 27B's score of 9.6.
Gemma 3 27B has a 128,000 token context window, while Step 3.5 Flash has a 256,000 token context window.
Gemma 3 27B supports vision. Step 3.5 Flash does not support vision.

Built by @aellman

Archive
Follow us:
Advertise | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2026 68 Ventures, LLC. All rights reserved.