Agentic
Not comparable- Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
- Not measured
- Step 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) vs Step 3.5 Flash
Updated July 29, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.
0 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Step 3.5 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
Evidence parity totals are not available.
- Shared results
- 0
- Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) only
- 0
- Step 3.5 Flash only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Not comparable- Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
- Not measured
- Step 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
- Not measured
- Step 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
- Not measured
- Step 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
- Not measured
- Step 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
- Not measured
- Step 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
- Not measured
- Step 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
- Not measured
- Step 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) | Step 3.5 Flash | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
- $0.00015
- Fits in one request
- Step 3.5 Flash
- $0.00025
- Fits in one request
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
- $0.0053
- Fits in one request
- Step 3.5 Flash
- $0.0059
- Fits in one request
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
- $0.023
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Step 3.5 Flash
- $0.025
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) has the lower modeled cost
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Step 3.5 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationMinistral 3 3B (Reasoning)Step 3.5 Flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
256K
Step 3.5 Flash
256K
API model ID
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Step 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
Not published
Step 3.5 Flash
Not published
Documented inputs
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Step 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Step 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Provider availability
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Step 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
Reasoning
Step 3.5 Flash
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
Open Weight
Step 3.5 Flash
Open Weight
License
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
Open Weight
Step 3.5 Flash
Open Weight
Release date
Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning)
2025-12-02
Step 3.5 Flash
2026-01-20
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0053 vs $0.0059. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.023 vs $0.025.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 256K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) or Step 3.5 Flash?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) or Step 3.5 Flash?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) or Step 3.5 Flash?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) or Step 3.5 Flash?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00015 on Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) and $0.00025 on Step 3.5 Flash; repository review costs $0.0053 and $0.0059; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.023 and $0.025. Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Step 3.5 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) or Step 3.5 Flash?
Both models list the same context window, 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 29, 2026
Watch Ministral 3 3B (Reasoning) vs Step 3.5 Flash
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.