Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
64
Step 3.7 Flash
72
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 2.5 Pro only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Coding
+7.5 difference
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Step 3.7 Flash
$1.25 / $10
$0.2 / $1.15
117 t/s
N/A
21.19s
N/A
1M
256K
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 2.5 Pro only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Step 3.7 Flash is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 72 to 64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
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.
Step 3.7 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 64.
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 63.8 versus 56.3. Step 3.7 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.