Extract vs Step 3.5 Flash
Updated October 21, 2026. 0 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- No data
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- 17.0
- Output $/M
- $0.30
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Extract has the edge where the context window is larger, 1M against 262K tokens.
- Shared results
- 0
- Extract only
- 0
- Step 3.5 Flash only
- 35
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Step 3.5 Flash has a AA Intelligence Index result, 17.0.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Extract
Extract takes 1M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Extract
Extract $0.0000, Step 3.5 Flash $0.0003 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Extract not benchmarked, Step 3.5 Flash not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- No category has a result for both models.
- Widest single gap
- No benchmark has a result for both models.
- Output price
- Extract Free against Step 3.5 Flash $0.30 per million output tokens.
- Context window
- Extract takes 1M 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.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Extract | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 32.6% | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | Not measured | 1436 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | Not measured | 1434 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Extract | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 17.0 | Only 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 index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Extract | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 94.4% | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Extract | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 83.1% | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 24.5% | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | Not measured | 1411 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | Not measured | 1421 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | Not measured | 1421 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Extract | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text: math | Not measured | 1408 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | Not measured | 1421 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Extract | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text: science | Not measured | 1415 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | Not measured | 1408 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | Not measured | 1408 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | Not measured | 1394 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Extract | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index19 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Extract | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 66.5% | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 63.0% | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text | Not measured | 1403 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | Not measured | 1385 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | Not measured | 1357 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: English | Not measured | 1417 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | Not measured | 1385 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | Not measured | 1446 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: German | Not measured | 1405 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | Not measured | 1353 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | Not measured | 1351 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: French | Not measured | 1421 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | Not measured | 1419 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | Not measured | 1385 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | Not measured | 1389 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | Not measured | 1404 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | Not measured | 1402 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | Not measured | 1372 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | Not measured | 1360 | Only 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
| Benchmark | Extract | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Extract costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Extract costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Extract 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.
| Specification | ScaleDown Extract | StepFun Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Scaledown | StepFun |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | October 13, 2026 | January 29, 2026 |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.04 | $0.10 |
| Output $/Mtok | Free | $0.30 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Extract better than Step 3.5 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Extract has the edge where the context window is larger, 1M against 262K tokens.
Which is cheaper, Extract or Step 3.5 Flash?
Extract costs $0.04 per million input tokens and Free 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, Extract or Step 3.5 Flash?
Extract, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Extract vs Step 3.5 Flash comparison based on?
0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Extract'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.