Model comparison
Gemma 4 31B vs Step 3.7 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: Gemma 4 31B supported; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 31B and Step 3.7 Flash share 18 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Gemma 4 31B; 12 to Step 3.7 Flash.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 12
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 12
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Gemma 4 31B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 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
Gemma 4 31B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 62 to 57. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
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.
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 | Gemma 4 31B | Δ | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemma 4 31B41.6 | Margin→ 14.7 | Step 3.7 Flash56.3 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 31BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 Flash66.4 |
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 31B53.3 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 31B76.9 | 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 | Gemma 4 31B | Step 3.7 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 31B$0 input / $0 output | Step 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 output | Gemma 4 31B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 31BNot available | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 31BNot available | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 31B256K | Step 3.7 Flash256K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 14.4% | 21.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 59.9% | 98.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 15.2% | 25.9% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 804 | 1017 | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 35.26% | 51.57% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 28.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 0.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 37.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 15.1% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
CodingStep 3.7 Flash wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-RebenchSource | 41.6% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 75.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 43.4% | 39.6% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 36.4% | 35.6% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 43.4% | 40.0% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 56.3% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 26.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 19.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 29.4% | 30.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 85.7% | 80.9% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 22.7% | 19.9% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -45.4% | -37.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 19.9% | 25.4% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | 84.4% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 38.9% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 75.6% | 67.3% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemma 4 31B or Step 3.7 Flash?
Gemma 4 31B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 62 to 57.
Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 31B or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 56.3 versus 41.6. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
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.