Model comparison
Qwen2.5-Max vs Step 3.7 Flash
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 37.3 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 36.9.
- Step 3.7 Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen2.5-Max | Step 3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | StepFun |
| Noometry Index | 40.7 | 37.3 |
| Released | 2025-01-25 | 2026-05-29 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 256K |
| Max output | — | 256K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.18 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.11 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 5 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117), Step 3.7 Flash: 40.0 (#150)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 40% |
| LiveBench Coding | 64.4% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1359 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 694.12 |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147), Step 3.7 Flash: 21.6 (#219)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 39.7% |
| CritPt | — | 2.3% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 51.4% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1360 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 67.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 132.53 | — |
| LiveBench | 62.3% | — |
Math Step 3.7 Flash leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162), Step 3.7 Flash: 42.9 (#82)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 68.5% |
| LiveBench Math | 58.4% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1369 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | 21.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1337 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1352 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1382 | — |
| LMArena French | 1396 | — |
| LMArena German | 1350 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1300 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1304 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1353 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1377 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 75.3% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1335 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1367 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1339 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 72.9% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1364 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 56.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2.5-Max better than Step 3.7 Flash?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen2.5-Max or Step 3.7 Flash better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 40.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Max and Step 3.7 Flash share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Max has 27 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.7 Flash has 5.