The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

GPT-6 Cyber vs Step-3.5-Flash

GPT-6 Cyber leads the LLM Stats Score 40.8 to 36.4. Step-3.5-Flash is 228.6x cheaper per token.

OpenAI · StepFun · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

GPT-6 Cyber leads the overall LLM Stats Score 40.8 to 36.4, ranking #82 overall.

On price, Step-3.5-Flash is roughly 228.6x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

GPT-6 Cyber also accepts a larger context window (1,050,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose GPT-6 Cyber

  • overall performance matters — it scores 40.8 and ranks #82 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes coding and agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,050,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Nov 2026

Choose Step-3.5-Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 228.6x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

GPT-6 Cyber
OpenAI
Step-3.5-Flash
StepFun
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
40.8
#82
36.4
#103
Coding
32.7
#47
20.2
#127
Agents
30.5
#48
14.3
#125
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$20.00 / M
$0.10 / M
Output price
$100.00 / M
$0.40 / M
Context window
1,050,000
65,536

Individual benchmarks

1 reported for GPT-6 Cyber · 7 for Step-3.5-Flash

No common benchmarks found

GPT-6 Cyber and Step-3.5-Flashdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Step-3.5-Flash costs less

For input processing, GPT-6 Cyber ($20.00/1M tokens) is 200.0x more expensive than Step-3.5-Flash ($0.10/1M tokens).

For output processing, GPT-6 Cyber ($100.00/1M tokens) is 250.0x more expensive than Step-3.5-Flash ($0.40/1M tokens).

In conclusion, GPT-6 Cyber is more expensive than Step-3.5-Flash.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Nov 13 2026 • llm-stats.com
OpenAI
GPT-6 Cyber
Input tokens$20.00
Output tokens$100.00
Best providerOpenAI
StepFun
Step-3.5-Flash
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.40
Best providerStepFun
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

GPT-6 Cyber accepts 1,050,000 input tokens compared to Step-3.5-Flash's 65,536 tokens. GPT-6 Cyber can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Step-3.5-Flash is limited to 8,192 tokens.

OpenAI
GPT-6 Cyber
Input1,050,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
StepFun
Step-3.5-Flash
Input65,536 tokens
Output8,192 tokens
Fri Nov 13 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

GPT-6 Cyber supports multimodal inputs, whereas Step-3.5-Flash does not.

GPT-6 Cyber can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

GPT-6 Cyber

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Step-3.5-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

GPT-6 Cyber is licensed under a proprietary license, while Step-3.5-Flash uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

GPT-6 Cyber

Proprietary

Closed source

Step-3.5-Flash

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

GPT-6 Cyber was released on 2026-11-05, while Step-3.5-Flash was released on 2026-02-02.

GPT-6 Cyber is 9 months newer than Step-3.5-Flash.

GPT-6 Cyber

Nov 5, 2026

1 weeks ago

9mo newer
Step-3.5-Flash

Feb 2, 2026

9 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

GPT-6 Cyber is available from OpenAI. Step-3.5-Flash is available from StepFun.

GPT-6 Cyber

openai logo
OpenAI
Input Price:Input: $20.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $100.00/1M

Step-3.5-Flash

stepfun logo
StepFun
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against GPT-6 Cyber and Step-3.5-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

GPT-6 Cyber
✓ Preferred
Step-3.5-Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about GPT-6 Cyber vs Step-3.5-Flash.

Which is better, GPT-6 Cyber or Step-3.5-Flash?

GPT-6 Cyber leads the LLM Stats Score 40.8 to 36.4. GPT-6 Cyber is made by OpenAI and Step-3.5-Flash is made by StepFun. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does GPT-6 Cyber compare to Step-3.5-Flash in benchmarks?

GPT-6 Cyber scores ExploitGym: 48.5%. Step-3.5-Flash scores AIME 2025: 97.3%, Tau-bench: 88.2%, LiveCodeBench v6: 86.4%, IMO-AnswerBench: 85.4%, SWE-Bench Verified: 74.4%.

Is GPT-6 Cyber cheaper than Step-3.5-Flash?

Step-3.5-Flash is 200.0x cheaper for input tokens. GPT-6 Cyber costs $20.00/M input and $100.00/M output via openai. Step-3.5-Flash costs $0.10/M input and $0.40/M output via stepfun.

What are the context window sizes for GPT-6 Cyber and Step-3.5-Flash?

GPT-6 Cyber supports 1.1M tokens and Step-3.5-Flash supports 66K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between GPT-6 Cyber and Step-3.5-Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (40.8 vs 36.4), context window (1.1M vs 66K), input pricing ($20.00 vs $0.10/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes GPT-6 Cyber and Step-3.5-Flash?

GPT-6 Cyber is developed by OpenAI and Step-3.5-Flash is developed by StepFun.

Related comparisons