Skip to main content

Model comparison

Gemma 4 12B vs Step 3.7 Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

47.29/100
Margin
3.6pts
winning →
50.87/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 12B #137 (Estimated); Step 3.7 Flash #110 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemma 4 12B and Step 3.7 Flash share 12 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to Gemma 4 12B; 17 to Step 3.7 Flash.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
12
Gemma 4 12B only
11
Step 3.7 Flash only
17
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Gemma 4 12B and Step 3.7 Flash is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

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 scores and score margins for Gemma 4 12B and Step 3.7 Flash
CategoryGemma 4 12BΔStep 3.7 Flash
AgenticGemma 4 12BNot measuredMarginNo overlapStep 3.7 Flash66.4
CodingGemma 4 12BNot measuredMarginNo overlapStep 3.7 Flash56.3
ReasoningGemma 4 12B43.4MarginNo overlapStep 3.7 FlashNot measured
KnowledgeGemma 4 12B77.5MarginNo overlapStep 3.7 FlashNot measured
MathGemma 4 12B77.5MarginNo overlapStep 3.7 FlashNot measured
MultimodalGemma 4 12B69.1MarginNo overlapStep 3.7 FlashNot measured

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGemma 4 12BStep 3.7 FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemma 4 12BNot availableStep 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemma 4 12BNot availableStep 3.7 FlashNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemma 4 12BNot availableStep 3.7 FlashNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemma 4 12B256KStep 3.7 Flash256KListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BStep 3.7 FlashResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 36.3%98.5%Step 3.7 Flash leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.5%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 75.8%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 92.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 25.9%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 49.5%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 67.1%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 47.2%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 51.57%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 21.5%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1017Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 14.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BStep 3.7 FlashResult
AA-SciCodeSource 38.2%40.0%Step 3.7 Flash leads
SWE-bench ProSource 56.3%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.5%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 39.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BStep 3.7 FlashResult
BBHSource 53%Not comparable
MRCRv2Source 43.4%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 55.3%63.7%Step 3.7 Flash leads
CritPtSource 0.0%2.3%Step 3.7 Flash leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BStep 3.7 FlashResult
GPQASource 78.8%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 78.8%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 77.2%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 5.2%Not comparable
MMMLUSource 83.4%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 22.0%30.3%Step 3.7 Flash leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 75.3%80.9%Step 3.7 Flash leads
AA-HLESource 14.8%19.9%Step 3.7 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -51.9%-37.5%Step 3.7 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 16.0%25.4%Step 3.7 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 80.8%84.4%Gemma 4 12B leads
Math
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BStep 3.7 FlashResult
AIME26Source 77.5%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BStep 3.7 FlashResult
MMMU-ProSource 69.1%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 79.7%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 48.7%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 69.7%75.3%Step 3.7 Flash leads
SimpleVQASource 79.2%Not comparable
V*Source 95.3%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1211Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BStep 3.7 FlashResult
AA-IFBenchSource 73.5%67.3%Gemma 4 12B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Gemma 4 12B and Step 3.7 Flash on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

What data is available for Gemma 4 12B and Step 3.7 Flash today?

Step 3.7 Flash: $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.