Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3-30B-A3B vs Step 3.5 Flash

Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3-30B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

38.9

Rank #179 Confirmed

Step 3.5 Flash StepFun

42.3

Rank #116 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3-30B-A3B scores higher in 1 category and Step 3.5 Flash in 7 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where Step 3.5 Flash leads 42.8 to 31.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is MathArena Final-Answer Competitions: 47.8% for Qwen3-30B-A3B and 66.8% for Step 3.5 Flash.
  • Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.12 / $0.50 for Qwen3-30B-A3B.
  • Step 3.5 Flash accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 41K.

Side by side

Qwen3-30B-A3BStep 3.5 Flash
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)StepFun
Noometry Index38.942.3
Released2025-04-282026-01-29
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window41K256K
Max output16K256K
Input $ / M tokens$0.12$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$0.50$0.30
Results tracked3219

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

Category by category

Coding Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.5 (#194), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.4 (#105)

BenchmarkQwen3-30B-A3BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Coding14161436
SciCode33.3%—
WeirdML29.8%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.8 (#82), Step 3.5 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3-30B-A3BStep 3.5 Flash
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard41.4%—

Reasoning Too close to call

Qwen3-30B-A3B: 22.2 (#204), Step 3.5 Flash: 22.2 (#202)

BenchmarkQwen3-30B-A3BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts13981411
Kagi LLM Benchmark54.9%—
NYT Connections (extended)—28.4%
CritPt0.3%—
Chess Puzzles8%—
DTBench69.3%—
LMCA22.4%—
Epoch Capabilities Index139.63—

Math Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.4 (#157), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.6 (#84)

BenchmarkQwen3-30B-A3BStep 3.5 Flash
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions47.8%66.8%
LMArena Math13941408
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202570.3%—

Knowledge Qwen3-30B-A3B leads

Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.8 (#105), Step 3.5 Flash: 39.6 (#132)

BenchmarkQwen3-30B-A3BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Expert13961421
GPQA Diamond70.1%—
Confabulations12.3%—

Multilingual Too close to call

Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.5 (#132), Step 3.5 Flash: 50.5 (#119)

BenchmarkQwen3-30B-A3BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Non-English13721385
LMArena Chinese14331447
LMArena French14181421
LMArena German13801405
LMArena Japanese13371354
LMArena Korean13311352
LMArena Russian13701385
LMArena Spanish14041419

Instruction Following Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.0 (#142), Step 3.5 Flash: 73.1 (#124)

BenchmarkQwen3-30B-A3BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following13631385

Long Context Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#283), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.8 (#117)

BenchmarkQwen3-30B-A3BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Longer Query13791402
Fiction.LiveBench40.6%—

Writing & Preference Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.6 (#143), Step 3.5 Flash: 58.8 (#113)

BenchmarkQwen3-30B-A3BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text13841403
LMArena Creative Writing13171357
LMArena Multi-Turn13781405
Short-Story Creative Writing75.3%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3-30B-A3B better than Step 3.5 Flash?

Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3-30B-A3B 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; Qwen3-30B-A3B lists at $0.12 and $0.50.

Is Qwen3-30B-A3B or Step 3.5 Flash better for coding?

Step 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 37.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Step 3.5 Flash does, with 256K tokens against 41K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3-30B-A3B and Step 3.5 Flash share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.5 Flash has 19.

Related comparisons

Go deeper