Model comparison
Qwen1.5-72B vs Step 3.5 Flash
Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
StepFunSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-72B 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 11.5.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-72B | Step 3.5 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | StepFun |
| Noometry Index | 30.8 | 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 | 22 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Step 3.5 Flash leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.4 (#105)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1165 | 1436 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.3% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 59.1% | — |
| MBPP+ | 61.6% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203), Step 3.5 Flash: 22.2 (#202)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1148 | 1411 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 28.4% |
Math Step 3.5 Flash leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.6 (#84)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1164 | 1408 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 66.8% |
Knowledge Step 3.5 Flash leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300), Step 3.5 Flash: 39.6 (#132)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1136 | 1421 |
| GPQA Diamond | 28.8% | — |
Multilingual Step 3.5 Flash leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253), Step 3.5 Flash: 50.5 (#119)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1135 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1186 | 1447 |
| LMArena French | 1159 | 1421 |
| LMArena German | 1084 | 1405 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1061 | 1354 |
| LMArena Korean | 1050 | 1352 |
| LMArena Russian | 1104 | 1385 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1110 | 1419 |
Instruction Following Step 3.5 Flash leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256), Step 3.5 Flash: 73.1 (#124)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1141 | 1385 |
Long Context Step 3.5 Flash leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1157 | 1402 |
Writing & Preference Step 3.5 Flash leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258), Step 3.5 Flash: 58.8 (#113)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1166 | 1403 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1137 | 1357 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1160 | 1405 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-72B better than Step 3.5 Flash?
Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen1.5-72B or Step 3.5 Flash better for coding?
Step 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-72B and Step 3.5 Flash share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-72B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.5 Flash has 19.