Gemini (Google) vs StepFun Step 3.5 Flash

Which one should you pick? Here's the full breakdown.

Our Pick

Gemini (Google)

A
8.3/10

Google's LLM with deep Google Workspace integration, 2M token context window, and native code execution

StepFun Step 3.5 Flash

B
7.8/10

StepFun's (China) agent-focused open-weight model -- Step 3.5 Flash launched 2026-02-01. 196B sparse MoE, ~11B active. Benchmarks slightly ahead of DeepSeek V3.2 at over 3x smaller total size. Step 3 (321B / 38B active, Apache 2.0) and Step3-VL-10B multimodal also in the family

CategoryGemini (Google)StepFun Step 3.5 Flash
Ease of Use8.06.0
Output Quality8.08.0
Value9.09.0
Features8.08.0
Overall8.37.8

Pricing Comparison

FeatureGemini (Google)StepFun Step 3.5 Flash
Free TierYesYes
Starting Price$0$0

Benchmark Head-to-Head

Gemini 3.1 Ultra benchmarks — StepFun Step 3.5 Flash has no published benchmarks

BenchmarkScore
MMLU90.5%
GPQA Diamond94.3%
HumanEval93.5%
SWE-bench80.6%
ARC-AGI77.1%

Which Should You Pick?

Pick Gemini (Google) if...

  • Easier to use (8 vs 6)

Google Workspace power users. If you live in Gmail, Docs, and Drive, Gemini Advanced integrates directly into your workflow. Also great for developers who need the cheapest API with the longest context window.

Visit Gemini (Google)

Pick StepFun Step 3.5 Flash if...

Teams building agent systems on Chinese open-weight foundations who want something other than DeepSeek or Qwen, especially if agentic tool-use is the primary workload. Also good for Chinese-market products where StepFun's domestic tuning advantages matter. And for anyone looking to add diversity to their open-weight evaluation matrix beyond the top-3 Chinese labs.

Visit StepFun Step 3.5 Flash

Our Verdict

Gemini (Google) edges out StepFun Step 3.5 Flash with a 8.3 vs 7.8 overall score. Both are solid picks, but Gemini (Google) has the advantage in features.