Model Comparison
Phi-4
vs. Step 3.5 Flash
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Microsoft, StepFun
Recommended Pick
StStep 3.5 Flash14 metric winsStrongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Step 3.5 Flash
100.0 value score
42.6 reasoning / $0.15/1M
Lowest Price
Step 3.5 Flash
$0.10/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Step 3.5 Flash
42.6 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Step 3.5 Flash has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Step 3.5 Flash is 1.3x cheaper on input tokens than Phi-4.
Speed gap
Step 3.5 Flash generates about 6.3x as many tokens per second as Phi-4.
Reasoning gap
Step 3.5 Flash leads Phi-4 by 14.3 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Step 3.5 Flash wins 14 measurable categories, including Value, Input price, Output price, Blended price.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Phi-4
Microsoft
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Step 3.5 Flash
StepFun
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Chat with leading AI models
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Mi Phi-4 | Top Pick St Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.13/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.50/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.22/1M | $0.15/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Microsoft | StepFun |
| Release Date | Dec 12, 2024 | Feb 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 31.8 tok/s | 201.2 tok/s |
| TTFT | 504ms | 788ms |
| Latency | 504ms | 10730ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 45.5 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 28.3 | 42.6 |
| Intelligence | 4.9 | 25.5 |
| Math | 18.0 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 57.5% | 83.1% |
| MMLU Pro | 71.4% | — |
| HLE | 4.1% | 19.1% |
| LiveCodeBench | 23.1% | — |
| MATH 500 | 81.0% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 18.0% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 14.3% | — |
| SciCode | 26.0% | 40.4% |
| LCR | 0.0% | 43.0% |
| IFBench | 23.5% | 64.6% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 0.0% | 94.4% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 3.8% | 27.3% |
Key Takeaways
Step 3.5 Flash offers the best value at $0.10/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Step 3.5 Flash has the strongest reasoning profile with a 42.6 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Phi-4
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
Step 3.5 Flash
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
