Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) vs Step 3.5 Flash

Step 3.5 Flash costs 2.0x less per output token than GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) ($0.30 vs $0.60 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 28 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) Replace Step 3.5 Flash
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)OpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.60
0
Step 3.5 FlashStepFun
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.30
28
vs boards won of 28 shared

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) or Step 3.5 Flash: which to pick

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

Pick GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) for work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Model AGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)OpenAINot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BStep 3.5 FlashStepFunNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
28
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) only
18
Step 3.5 Flash only
7
Like-for-like categories
5 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

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
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) not benchmarked, Step 3.5 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
Reasoning, 26.3 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: expert: GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) 1234 against Step 3.5 Flash 1421, 31.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) $0.60 against Step 3.5 Flash $0.30 per million output tokens, 2.0x apart.
Context window
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) takes 128K 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
CategoryGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)BarsStep 3.5 FlashTies
Coding02
Reasoning03
Math02
Knowledge04
General017
All shared boards028
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Step 3.5 FlashLeader
Aider polyglot3.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured32.6%Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
WeirdML11.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: coding12901436Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: software and IT12911434Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Step 3.5 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured17.0Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Step 3.5 FlashLeader
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured94.4%Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
BALROG17.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Step 3.5 FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured83.1%Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured24.5%Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)37.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
SimpleBench10.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
Chess puzzles3.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
Mystery game puzzles12.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
VPCT34.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts12671411Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: expert12341421Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12781421Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Step 3.5 FlashLeader
OTIS Mock AIME6.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 30.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
MATH level 552.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: math12671408Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: mathematical work12711421Step 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 GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Step 3.5 FlashLeader
SimpleQA Verified8.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
MMLU76.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
GeoBench64.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: science12861415Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12821408Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: legal and government13051408Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: business and finance12651394Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Step 3.5 FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index017
General benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Step 3.5 FlashLeader
IFBenchNot measured66.5%Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured63.0%Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)67.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text12861403Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: instruction following12581385Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: creative writing12681357Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Vision1066Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: English13011417Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: non-English12661385Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Chinese12651446Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: German12721405Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Japanese12161353Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Korean11951351Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: French12971421Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Spanish12761419Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Russian12751385Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Polish12441389Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: multi-turn12851404Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: longer queries12891402Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: writing and language12821372Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12531360Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Vision: English1072Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1033Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Step 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

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)$0.0004Fits in one request
Step 3.5 Flash$0.0003Fits in one request

Step 3.5 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)$0.0093Fits in one request
Step 3.5 Flash$0.0059Fits in one request

Step 3.5 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)$0.036Exceeds the context window
Step 3.5 Flash$0.023Fits in one request

Step 3.5 Flash 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 GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) and Step 3.5 Flash
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)StepFun Step 3.5 Flash
MakerOpenAIStepFun
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 18, 2024January 29, 2026
Context window128K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.15$0.10
Output $/Mtok$0.60$0.30
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) better than Step 3.5 Flash for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) for work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) or Step 3.5 Flash?

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 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, GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) or Step 3.5 Flash?

Step 3.5 Flash, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) vs Step 3.5 Flash comparison based on?

28 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)'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