Model comparison
Qwen1.5-32B vs Step 3.5 Flash
Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
StepFunSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-32B scores higher in 0 categories and Step 3.5 Flash in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Step 3.5 Flash leads 39.6 to 13.5.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-32B | Step 3.5 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | StepFun |
| Noometry Index | 30.5 | 42.3 |
| Released | 2024-02-04 | 2026-01-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 256K |
| Max output | — | 256K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.30 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Step 3.5 Flash leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.4 (#105)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1155 | 1436 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 32.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 42% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212), Step 3.5 Flash: 22.2 (#202)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1130 | 1411 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 28.4% |
Math Step 3.5 Flash leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.6 (#84)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1408 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 66.8% |
Knowledge Step 3.5 Flash leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296), Step 3.5 Flash: 39.6 (#132)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1126 | 1421 |
| GPQA Diamond | 30.7% | — |
| MMLU | 74.4% | — |
Multilingual Step 3.5 Flash leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259), Step 3.5 Flash: 50.5 (#119)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1106 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1177 | 1447 |
| LMArena French | 1101 | 1421 |
| LMArena German | 1058 | 1405 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1027 | 1354 |
| LMArena Korean | 1008 | 1352 |
| LMArena Russian | 1073 | 1385 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1089 | 1419 |
Instruction Following Step 3.5 Flash leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265), Step 3.5 Flash: 73.1 (#124)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | 1385 |
Long Context Step 3.5 Flash leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1146 | 1402 |
Writing & Preference Step 3.5 Flash leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271), Step 3.5 Flash: 58.8 (#113)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1137 | 1403 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1083 | 1357 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1140 | 1405 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-32B better than Step 3.5 Flash?
Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen1.5-32B or Step 3.5 Flash better for coding?
Step 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-32B and Step 3.5 Flash share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-32B has 21 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.5 Flash has 19.