Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Step 3.7 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: Gemini 2.5 Pro supported; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 2.5 Pro and Step 3.7 Flash share 19 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Gemini 2.5 Pro; 11 to Step 3.7 Flash.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Gemini 2.5 Pro only
- 6
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 11
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Gemini 2.5 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 59 versus 57. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Gemini 2.5 Pro's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 63.8 against 56.3.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.25 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. That is roughly 8.7x on output cost alone. Step 3.7 Flash is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 2.5 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemini 2.5 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Δ | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemini 2.5 Pro63.8 | Margin← 7.5 | Step 3.7 Flash56.3 |
| Agentic | Gemini 2.5 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 Flash66.4 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 2.5 Pro27.5 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
| Math | Gemini 2.5 Pro11.6 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Step 3.7 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 2.5 Pro$1.25 input / $10 output | Step 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 output | Step 3.7 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 2.5 Pro117 tok/s | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 2.5 Pro21.19 s | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 2.5 Pro1M | Step 3.7 Flash256K | Gemini 2.5 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 7.1% | 21.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 54.1% | 98.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 42.01% | 51.57% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 8.3% | 25.9% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 665 | 1017 | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 47.2% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
CodingGemini 2.5 Pro wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 63.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 0.40% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 33.3% | 39.6% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 26.5% | 35.6% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 42.8% | 40.0% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 56.3% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 18.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.8% | 30.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.4% | 80.9% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 21.1% | 19.9% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -14.3% | -37.5% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 39.0% | 25.4% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 87.4% | 84.4% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 48.7% | 67.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Step 3.7 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 59 to 57.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Step 3.7 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 63.8 versus 56.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.