Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini vs Step 3.5 Flash

GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini leads Step 3.5 Flash on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 20.4 to 17.0, and Step 3.5 Flash costs 6.7x less per output token ($0.30 vs $2.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 7 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-5.1-Codex-MiniOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.00
4
Step 3.5 FlashStepFun
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.30
3
vs boards won of 7 shared

GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini 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-5.1-Codex-Mini for a larger context window (400K against 262K tokens) and work measured by τ²-Bench Telecom or GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
7
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini only
15
Step 3.5 Flash only
28
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-5.1-Codex-Mini not benchmarked, Step 3.5 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 31.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini 62.9% against Step 3.5 Flash 94.4%, 31.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini $2.00 against Step 3.5 Flash $0.30 per million output tokens, 6.7x apart.
Context window
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini takes 400K 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-5.1-Codex-MiniBarsStep 3.5 FlashTies
Coding10
Intelligence10
Agentic work01
Reasoning02
General20
All shared boards43
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniStep 3.5 FlashLeader
LMArena WebDev1244Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)83.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)33.3%32.6%GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
Terminal-Bench61.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1436Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1434Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1253Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniStep 3.5 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index20.417.0GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniStep 3.5 FlashLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom62.9%94.4%Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniStep 3.5 FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)81.3%83.1%Step 3.5 Flash
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)18.5%24.5%Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1411Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1421Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1421Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniStep 3.5 FlashLeader
AA Math Index91.7Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)91.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1408Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1421Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniStep 3.5 FlashLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)82.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1415Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1408Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1408Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1394Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniStep 3.5 FlashLeader
Design Arena: websites1111Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Design Arena: UI components1081Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Design Arena: game dev1092Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Design Arena: data viz1097Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Design Arena: 3D988Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Design Arena: all code categories1094Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Design Arena: SVG978Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1105Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
General benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniStep 3.5 FlashLeader
IFBench67.9%66.5%GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)66.7%63.0%GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
LMArena TextNot measured1403Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1385Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1357Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1417Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1385Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1446Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1405Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
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: RussianNot measured1385Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1389Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1404Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1402Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1372Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1360Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniStep 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-5.1-Codex-Mini$0.0013Fits 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-5.1-Codex-Mini$0.018Fits 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-5.1-Codex-Mini$0.070Fits in one request
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-5.1-Codex-Mini and Step 3.5 Flash
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5.1-Codex-MiniStepFun Step 3.5 Flash
MakerOpenAIStepFun
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedNovember 13, 2025January 29, 2026
Context window400K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.25$0.10
Output $/Mtok$2.00$0.30
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it10
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini 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-5.1-Codex-Mini for a larger context window (400K against 262K tokens) and work measured by τ²-Bench Telecom or GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini or Step 3.5 Flash?

GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $2.00 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-5.1-Codex-Mini or Step 3.5 Flash?

GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini, with 400K tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini vs Step 3.5 Flash comparison based on?

7 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark 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