Model comparison
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
StepFunSummary
- The widest gap is in math, where Step 3.7 Flash leads 42.9 to 12.6.
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper at $0.17 / $0.70 per million input/output tokens, against $0.18 / $1.11 for Step 3.7 Flash.
- Step 3.7 Flash accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Step 3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | StepFun |
| Noometry Index | 29.0 | 37.3 |
| Released | 2024-09 | 2026-05-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 256K |
| Max output | 8K | 256K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.17 | $0.18 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.70 | $1.11 |
| Results tracked | 15 | 5 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Step 3.7 Flash leads
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 36.5 (#208), Step 3.7 Flash: 40.0 (#150)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 40% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 46.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 694.12 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.8 (#124), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 7.8% | — |
Reasoning Step 3.7 Flash leads
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.8 (#322), Step 3.7 Flash: 21.6 (#219)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 39.7% |
| CritPt | — | 2.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| DTBench | 47.7% | — |
| LMCA | 6.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 118.51 | — |
Math Step 3.7 Flash leads
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 12.6 (#306), Step 3.7 Flash: 42.9 (#82)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 68.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.5% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 29.4% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#286), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 35.5% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 53.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 34.1% | — |
| MMLU | 72.9% | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.2 (#231), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 74.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#195), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| WildBench | 73.1% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better than Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct or Step 3.7 Flash?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.17 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; Step 3.7 Flash lists at $0.18 and $1.11.
Is Qwen2.5 7B Instruct or Step 3.7 Flash better for coding?
Step 3.7 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 36.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Step 3.7 Flash does, with 256K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5 7B Instruct and Step 3.7 Flash share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.7 Flash has 5.