Model comparison

Qwen Plus vs Step 3.5 Flash

Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Qwen Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

37.1

Rank #210 Confirmed

Step 3.5 Flash StepFun

42.3

Rank #116 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen Plus scores higher in 1 category and Step 3.5 Flash in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Step 3.5 Flash leads 42.6 to 23.3.
  • Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.20 for Qwen Plus.
  • Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.
  • Step 3.5 Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen Plus and Step 3.5 Flash specifications
Qwen PlusStep 3.5 Flash
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)StepFun
Noometry Index37.142.3
Released2024-01-252026-01-29
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M256K
Max output33K256K
Input $ / M tokens$0.40$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$1.20$0.30
Results tracked2019

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen Plus: 38.9 (#167), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.4 (#105)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen PlusStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Coding13281436

Reasoning Qwen Plus leads

Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107), Step 3.5 Flash: 22.2 (#202)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen PlusStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts13171411
Kagi LLM Benchmark63.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)—28.4%
DTBench81.1%—
LMCA24%—

Math Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.6 (#84)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen PlusStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Math13261408
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—66.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202517.8%—
MATH Level 565.3%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)1.7%—

Knowledge Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251), Step 3.5 Flash: 39.6 (#132)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen PlusStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Expert13281421
GPQA Diamond48.1%—

Multilingual Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175), Step 3.5 Flash: 50.5 (#119)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen PlusStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Non-English13101385
LMArena Chinese13471447
LMArena Japanese12511354
LMArena Russian13231385
LMArena French—1421
LMArena German—1405
LMArena Korean—1352
LMArena Spanish—1419

Instruction Following Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181), Step 3.5 Flash: 73.1 (#124)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen PlusStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following13031385

Long Context Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.8 (#117)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen PlusStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Longer Query13241402

Writing & Preference Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176), Step 3.5 Flash: 58.8 (#113)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen PlusStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text13261403
LMArena Creative Writing12931357
LMArena Multi-Turn13361405

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen Plus better than Step 3.5 Flash?

Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen Plus or Step 3.5 Flash?

Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; Qwen Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.20.

Is Qwen Plus or Step 3.5 Flash better for coding?

Step 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen Plus and Step 3.5 Flash share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen Plus has 20 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.5 Flash has 19.

Related comparisons

Go deeper