Model Comparison
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning)
vs. Step 3.5 Flash 2603
Comparing 2 AI models · 7 benchmarks · Google, StepFun
Recommended Pick
Go Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) 11 metric wins Strongest on: Input price, Output price, Reasoning
Lowest Price
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning)
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning)
49.2 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning)
38.7 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Step 3.5 Flash 2603.
Speed gap
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 generates about 5.9x as many tokens per second as Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) leads Step 3.5 Flash 2603 by 1.3 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) leads Step 3.5 Flash 2603 by 4.1 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) wins 11 measurable categories, including Input price, Output price, Reasoning, Intelligence.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
StepFun
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Go Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) | St Step 3.5 Flash 2603 |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.00/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.00/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $0.15/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | StepFun | |
| Release Date | Apr 2, 2026 | Apr 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 34.9 tok/s | 206.6 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1049ms | 1021ms |
| Latency | 50849ms | 10700ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | — | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 49.2 | 47.9 |
| Intelligence | 39.2 | 38.5 |
| Coding | 38.7 | 34.6 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 85.7% | 82.6% |
| HLE | 22.7% | 22.6% |
| SciCode | 43.4% | 38.5% |
| LCR | 62.0% | 54.3% |
| IFBench | 75.6% | 66.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 59.9% | 87.4% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 36.4% | 32.6% |
Key Takeaways
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.00/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 49.2 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) reaches a 38.7 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
