StepFun Step 3.5 Flash vs Codex (OpenAI)

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

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

Our Pick

Codex (OpenAI)

A
8.3/10

OpenAI's cloud-based coding agent -- runs parallel tasks, proposes PRs, and lives inside ChatGPT

Powered by GPT-5.3-Codex / GPT-5.4

CategoryStepFun Step 3.5 FlashCodex (OpenAI)
Ease of Use6.08.0
Output Quality8.08.0
Value9.08.0
Features8.09.0
Overall7.88.3

Pricing Comparison

FeatureStepFun Step 3.5 FlashCodex (OpenAI)
Free TierYesYes
Starting Price$0$0

Benchmark Head-to-Head

GPT-5.3-Codex benchmarks — StepFun Step 3.5 Flash has no published benchmarks

BenchmarkScore
SWE-bench72%
HumanEval95%

Which Should You Pick?

Pick StepFun Step 3.5 Flash if...

  • Better value for money (9/10)

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

Pick Codex (OpenAI) if...

  • Easier to use (8 vs 6)
  • More features (9 vs 8)

Developers already paying for ChatGPT Plus who want a coding agent at no extra cost. Especially good for parallel task execution -- assign multiple bug fixes or feature branches and let Codex work them simultaneously.

Visit Codex (OpenAI)

Our Verdict

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