Skip to main content

Model comparison

Gemma 4 E2B vs Step 3.7 Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

41.65/100
Margin
9.1pts
winning →
50.76/100
0 category wins0 category wins

BenchAlign evidence: Gemma 4 E2B estimated; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemma 4 E2B and Step 3.7 Flash share 13 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Gemma 4 E2B; 17 to Step 3.7 Flash.

Updated July 16, 2026
Shared results
13
Gemma 4 E2B only
2
Step 3.7 Flash only
17
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Gemma 4 E2B and Step 3.7 Flash is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 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.

Step 3.7 Flash is priced at $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 E2B. Step 3.7 Flash has the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E2B.

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 E2B and Step 3.7 Flash
CategoryGemma 4 E2BΔStep 3.7 Flash
AgenticGemma 4 E2BNot measuredMarginNo overlapStep 3.7 Flash66.4
CodingGemma 4 E2BNot measuredMarginNo overlapStep 3.7 Flash56.3
KnowledgeGemma 4 E2B56.9MarginNo overlapStep 3.7 FlashNot measured

Operational comparison

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

MetricGemma 4 E2BStep 3.7 FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemma 4 E2B$0 input / $0 outputStep 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 outputGemma 4 E2B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemma 4 E2BNot availableStep 3.7 FlashNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemma 4 E2BNot availableStep 3.7 FlashNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemma 4 E2B128KStep 3.7 Flash256KStep 3.7 Flash lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemma 4 E2BStep 3.7 FlashResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 20.8%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 E2BStep 3.7 FlashResult
Terminal-Bench HardSource 3.0%35.6%Step 3.7 Flash leads
AA-SciCodeSource 20.9%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 E2BStep 3.7 FlashResult
AA-LCRSource 15.0%63.7%Step 3.7 Flash leads
CritPtSource 0.0%2.3%Step 3.7 Flash leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkGemma 4 E2BStep 3.7 FlashResult
GPQASource 43.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 60%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 9.3%30.3%Step 3.7 Flash leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 43.3%80.9%Step 3.7 Flash leads
AA-HLESource 4.8%19.9%Step 3.7 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -24.0%-37.5%Gemma 4 E2B leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 6.7%25.4%Step 3.7 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 32.9%84.4%Gemma 4 E2B leads
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemma 4 E2BStep 3.7 FlashResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 44.6%75.3%Step 3.7 Flash leads
SimpleVQASource 79.2%Not comparable
V*Source 95.3%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1218Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemma 4 E2BStep 3.7 FlashResult
AA-IFBenchSource 38.0%67.3%Step 3.7 Flash leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Gemma 4 E2B 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 E2B and Step 3.7 Flash today?

Gemma 4 E2B: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens 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 16, 2026

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.