LLM Reference

GPT-4o (11-20) vs Step 3.5 Flash

GPT-4o (11-20) (2024) and Step 3.5 Flash (2026) are frontier reasoning models from OpenAI and StepFun. GPT-4o (11-20) ships a 128k-token context window, while Step 3.5 Flash ships a 256k-token context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing. The goal is to make the tradeoff clear before deeper testing.

Step 3.5 Flash is safer overall; choose GPT-4o (11-20) when coding workflow support matters.

Decision scorecard

Local evidence first
SignalGPT-4o (11-20)Step 3.5 Flash
Best formultimodal appsreasoning-heavy apps
Decision fitCoding, Agents, and Long contextLong context
Context window128k256k
Cheapest output-$0.30/1M tokens
Provider routes0 tracked1 tracked
Shared benchmarks0 rows0 rows

Decision tradeoffs

Choose GPT-4o (11-20) when...
  • GPT-4o (11-20) uniquely exposes Vision and Code execution in local model data.
  • Local decision data tags GPT-4o (11-20) for Coding, Agents, and Long context.
Choose Step 3.5 Flash when...
  • Step 3.5 Flash has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
  • Step 3.5 Flash has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
  • Step 3.5 Flash uniquely exposes Reasoning in local model data.
  • Local decision data tags Step 3.5 Flash for Long context.

Monthly cost at traffic

Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.

GPT-4o (11-20)

Unavailable

No complete token price in local provider data

Step 3.5 Flash

$155

Cheapest tracked route/tier: OpenRouter

Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.

Switch friction

GPT-4o (11-20) -> Step 3.5 Flash
  • No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for GPT-4o (11-20) and Step 3.5 Flash; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
  • Check replacement coverage for Vision and Code execution before moving production traffic.
  • Step 3.5 Flash adds Reasoning in local capability data.
Step 3.5 Flash -> GPT-4o (11-20)
  • No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Step 3.5 Flash and GPT-4o (11-20); plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
  • Check replacement coverage for Reasoning before moving production traffic.
  • GPT-4o (11-20) adds Vision and Code execution in local capability data.

Specs

Specification
Released2024-11-202026-01-29
Context window128k256k
Parameters1.76T (8x222B MoE)*196B (11B active)
Architecturemixture of expertsmixture of experts
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
Knowledge cutoff2023-10-

Pricing and availability

Pricing attributeGPT-4o (11-20)Step 3.5 Flash
Input price-$0.10/1M tokens
Output price-$0.30/1M tokens
Providers-

Capabilities

CapabilityGPT-4o (11-20)Step 3.5 Flash
VisionYesNo
MultimodalNoNo
ReasoningNoYes
Function callingNoNo
Tool useNoNo
Structured outputsNoNo
Code executionYesNo
IDE integrationNoNo
Computer useNoNo
Parallel agentsNoNo

Benchmarks

No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.

Deep dive

The capability footprint differs most on vision: GPT-4o (11-20), reasoning mode: Step 3.5 Flash, and code execution: GPT-4o (11-20). Both models share the core language-model surface, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.

Pricing coverage is uneven: GPT-4o (11-20) has no token price sourced yet and Step 3.5 Flash has $0.10/1M input tokens. Provider availability is 0 tracked routes versus 1. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.

Choose GPT-4o (11-20) when coding workflow support are central to the workload. Choose Step 3.5 Flash when reasoning depth, larger context windows, and broader provider choice are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship. This keeps the decision grounded in measurable tradeoffs instead of brand-level assumptions. It also helps separate model capability from provider packaging, which can change cost and latency. For teams standardizing a stack, that distinction is often the difference between a benchmark win and a reliable deployment.

FAQ

Which has a larger context window, GPT-4o (11-20) or Step 3.5 Flash?

Step 3.5 Flash supports 256k tokens, while GPT-4o (11-20) supports 128k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.

Is GPT-4o (11-20) or Step 3.5 Flash open source?

GPT-4o (11-20) is listed under Proprietary. Step 3.5 Flash is listed under Open Source. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.

Which is better for vision, GPT-4o (11-20) or Step 3.5 Flash?

GPT-4o (11-20) has the clearer documented vision signal in this comparison. If vision is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.

Which is better for reasoning mode, GPT-4o (11-20) or Step 3.5 Flash?

Step 3.5 Flash has the clearer documented reasoning mode signal in this comparison. If reasoning mode is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.

Which is better for code execution, GPT-4o (11-20) or Step 3.5 Flash?

GPT-4o (11-20) has the clearer documented code execution signal in this comparison. If code execution is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.

Where can I run GPT-4o (11-20) and Step 3.5 Flash?

GPT-4o (11-20) is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Step 3.5 Flash is available on OpenRouter. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.

Continue comparing

Last reviewed: 2026-05-29. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.