Side-by-side comparison
Step 3.5 Flash vs gpt-oss-safeguard-20b
OpenAI
gpt-oss-safeguard-20b
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.0750
Output / 1M
$0.3000
| Step 3.5 Flash | gpt-oss-safeguard-20b | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | StepFun | OpenAI |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 262,144 | 131,072 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | tools, json_mode | tools, json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.1000 | 0.0750 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.3000 | 0.3000 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Step 3.5 Flash or gpt-oss-safeguard-20b?
gpt-oss-safeguard-20b is cheaper than Step 3.5 Flash on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.0125 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, Step 3.5 Flash or gpt-oss-safeguard-20b?
Step 3.5 Flash has the larger context window at 262k tokens versus 131k tokens for gpt-oss-safeguard-20b. That means Step 3.5 Flash can ingest about 2.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Step 3.5 Flash and gpt-oss-safeguard-20b?
Step 3.5 Flash comes from StepFun; gpt-oss-safeguard-20b comes from OpenAI. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.