Model comparison
Qwen3 14B vs Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
StepFunSummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3 14B scores higher in 0 categories and Step 3.7 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Step 3.7 Flash leads 42.9 to 38.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 31.6% for Qwen3 14B and 40% for Step 3.7 Flash.
- Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.18 / $1.11 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen3 14B.
- Step 3.7 Flash accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| Qwen3 14B | Step 3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | StepFun |
| Noometry Index | 35.5 | 37.3 |
| Released | 2025-04 | 2026-05-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 256K |
| Max output | 8K | 256K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.35 | $0.18 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $1.11 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 5 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Step 3.7 Flash leads
Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195), Step 3.7 Flash: 40.0 (#150)
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 41% | — |
Reasoning Step 3.7 Flash leads
Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280), Step 3.7 Flash: 21.6 (#219)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 2.3% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 49.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 39.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 4% | — |
| DTBench | 64% | — |
| LMCA | 18.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 138.23 | — |
Math Step 3.7 Flash leads
Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133), Step 3.7 Flash: 42.9 (#82)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 68.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 66.4% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 63.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.4% | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 62.5% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3 14B better than Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 14B or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.18 per million input tokens and $1.11 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.
Is Qwen3 14B or Step 3.7 Flash better for coding?
Step 3.7 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 37.3 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 Qwen3 14B and Step 3.7 Flash share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3 14B has 12 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.7 Flash has 5.