Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 3 4B vs Step 3.5 Flash

Updated October 21, 2026. 29 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace Gemma 3 4B Replace Step 3.5 Flash
Gemma 3 4BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
4.8
Output $/M
$0.075
0
Step 3.5 FlashStepFun
Coding
No data
Overall
17.0
Output $/M
$0.30
29
vs boards won of 29 shared

Decision reading

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Gemma 3 4B has the edge where output tokens cost 4.0x less, and where what matters is Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or LMArena Text: coding, where it leads.

Model AGemma 3 4BGoogleNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BStep 3.5 FlashStepFunNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
29
Gemma 3 4B only
10
Step 3.5 Flash only
6
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemma 3 4B not benchmarked, Step 3.5 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 89.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemma 3 4B 5.0% against Step 3.5 Flash 94.4%, 89.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 3 4B $0.075 against Step 3.5 Flash $0.30 per million output tokens, 4.0x apart.
Context window
Gemma 3 4B takes 131K tokens, Step 3.5 Flash 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemma 3 4BBarsStep 3.5 FlashTies
Coding03
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning05
Math02
Knowledge04
General013
All shared boards029
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
AA Coding Index2.7Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 4B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)11.2%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 4B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.8%32.6%Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: coding12301436Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: software and IT12691434Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index4.817.0Step 3.5 Flash
Epoch Capabilities Index115.9Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 4B measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom5.0%94.4%Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)29.1%83.1%Step 3.5 Flash
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)5.3%24.5%Step 3.5 Flash
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)23.2%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 4B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts12531411Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: expert12231421Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12531421Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
AA Math Index12.7Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 4B measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)12.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 4B measured
OTIS Mock AIME7.5%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 4B measured
LMArena Text: math12391408Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: mathematical work12561421Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)41.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 4B measured
LMArena Text: science13061415Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13421408Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: legal and government13271408Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: business and finance13111394Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index013
General benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
IFBench28.3%66.5%Step 3.5 Flash
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)6.7%63.0%Step 3.5 Flash
DTBench50.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 4B measured
LMCA2.8%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 4B measured
LMArena Text12911403Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: instruction following12391385Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: creative writing12701357Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: English13001417Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: non-English12731385Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1446Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: German12811405Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1353Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1351Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1421Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1419Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Russian12941385Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1389Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn12551404Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: longer queries12731402Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: writing and language12881372Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12331360Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Gemma 3 4B$0.0001Fits in one request
Step 3.5 Flash$0.0003Fits in one request

Gemma 3 4B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 3 4B$0.0025Fits in one request
Step 3.5 Flash$0.0059Fits in one request

Gemma 3 4B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 3 4B$0.0097Exceeds the context window
Step 3.5 Flash$0.023Fits in one request

Gemma 3 4B costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Gemma 3 4B and Step 3.5 Flash
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 3 4BStepFun Step 3.5 Flash
MakerGoogleStepFun
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 13, 2025January 29, 2026
Context window131K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.045$0.10
Output $/Mtok$0.075$0.30
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 3 4B better than Step 3.5 Flash for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Gemma 3 4B has the edge where output tokens cost 4.0x less, and where what matters is Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or LMArena Text: coding, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 4B or Step 3.5 Flash?

Gemma 3 4B costs $0.045 per million input tokens and $0.075 per million output tokens; Step 3.5 Flash costs $0.10 and $0.30. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 3 4B or Step 3.5 Flash?

Step 3.5 Flash, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 3 4B vs Step 3.5 Flash comparison based on?

29 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemma 3 4B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Step 3.5 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next