Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemma 4 31B
64
Step 3.7 Flash
72
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 31B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+14.7 difference
Gemma 4 31B
Step 3.7 Flash
$0 / $0
$0.2 / $1.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
256K
256K
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 31B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
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.
Step 3.7 Flash's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 56.3 against 41.6.
Step 3.7 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 31B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone.
Step 3.7 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 64.
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 56.3 versus 41.6. Gemma 4 31B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.