Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct vs Step 3.5 Flash

Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

29.0

Rank #320 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 12.6.
  • Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.17 / $0.70 for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
  • Step 3.5 Flash accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Qwen2.5 7B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)StepFun
Noometry Index29.042.3
Released2024-092026-01-29
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K256K
Max output8K256K
Input $ / M tokens$0.17$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$0.70$0.30
Results tracked1519

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

Category by category

Coding Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 36.5 (#208), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.4 (#105)

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
BigCodeBench Instruct37.6%—
LMArena Coding—1436
BigCodeBench Complete46.1%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.8 (#124), Step 3.5 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
BALROG7.8%—

Reasoning Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.8 (#322), Step 3.5 Flash: 22.2 (#202)

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)—28.4%
Chess Puzzles0%—
LMArena Hard Prompts—1411
DTBench47.7%—
LMCA6.4%—
Epoch Capabilities Index118.51—

Math Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 12.6 (#306), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.6 (#84)

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—66.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20252.5%—
Omni-MATH29.4%—
LMArena Math—1408

Knowledge Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#286), Step 3.5 Flash: 39.6 (#132)

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
GPQA Diamond35.5%—
MMLU-Pro53.9%—
GPQA (HELM)34.1%—
LMArena Expert—1421
MMLU72.9%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —, Step 3.5 Flash: 50.5 (#119)

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B 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 Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.2 (#231), Step 3.5 Flash: 73.1 (#124)

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
IFEval74.1%—
LMArena Instruction Following—1385

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —, Step 3.5 Flash: 42.8 (#117)

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Longer Query—1402

Writing & Preference Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#195), Step 3.5 Flash: 58.8 (#113)

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text—1403
LMArena Creative Writing—1357
WildBench73.1%—
LMArena Multi-Turn—1405

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better than Step 3.5 Flash?

Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5 7B 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 7B Instruct lists at $0.17 and $0.70.

Is Qwen2.5 7B Instruct or Step 3.5 Flash better for coding?

Step 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 36.5 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 7B Instruct and Step 3.5 Flash share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.5 Flash has 19.

Related comparisons

Go deeper