Model comparison

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct vs Step 3.5 Flash

Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

30.1

Rank #297 Confirmed

Step 3.5 Flash StepFun

42.3

Rank #116 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in math, where Step 3.5 Flash leads 42.6 to 16.2.
  • Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
  • Step 3.5 Flash accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct and Step 3.5 Flash specifications
Qwen2.5 32B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)StepFun
Noometry Index30.142.3
Released2024-092026-01-29
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K256K
Max output8K256K
Input $ / M tokens$0.70$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$2.80$0.30
Results tracked719

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

Category by category

Coding Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.4 (#105)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 32B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
BigCodeBench Instruct45%—
LMArena Coding—1436
BigCodeBench Complete52.3%—

Reasoning Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266), Step 3.5 Flash: 22.2 (#202)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 32B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)—28.4%
Chess Puzzles0%—
LMArena Hard Prompts—1411
Epoch Capabilities Index128.52—

Math Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.6 (#84)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 32B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—66.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20257.4%—
LMArena Math—1408
MATH Level 556.1%—

Knowledge Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266), Step 3.5 Flash: 39.6 (#132)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 32B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
GPQA Diamond46.1%—
LMArena Expert—1421

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —, Step 3.5 Flash: 50.5 (#119)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 32B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Non-English—1385
LMArena Chinese—1447
LMArena French—1421
LMArena German—1405
LMArena Japanese—1354
LMArena Korean—1352
LMArena Russian—1385
LMArena Spanish—1419

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —, Step 3.5 Flash: 73.1 (#124)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 32B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following—1385

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —, Step 3.5 Flash: 42.8 (#117)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 32B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Longer Query—1402

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —, Step 3.5 Flash: 58.8 (#113)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 32B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text—1403
LMArena Creative Writing—1357
LMArena Multi-Turn—1405

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better than Step 3.5 Flash?

Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct 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; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is Qwen2.5 32B Instruct or Step 3.5 Flash better for coding?

Step 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Step 3.5 Flash does, with 256K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5 32B Instruct and Step 3.5 Flash share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.5 Flash has 19.

Related comparisons

Go deeper