Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3 32B vs Step 3.5 Flash

Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Step 3.5 Flash StepFun

42.3

Rank #116 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3 32B scores higher in 2 categories and Step 3.5 Flash in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Step 3.5 Flash leads 58.8 to 52.9.
  • Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
  • Step 3.5 Flash accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Qwen3 32BStep 3.5 Flash
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)StepFun
Noometry Index39.242.3
Released2025-042026-01-29
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K256K
Max output16K256K
Input $ / M tokens$0.70$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$2.80$0.30
Results tracked2619

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

Category by category

Coding Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.4 (#105)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Coding13581436
Aider Polyglot40%—
SciCode35.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62), Step 3.5 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 Flash
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard48.7%—

Reasoning Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241), Step 3.5 Flash: 22.2 (#202)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts13341411
Kagi LLM Benchmark54.9%—
NYT Connections (extended)—28.4%
CritPt0.3%—
Chess Puzzles5%—
DTBench67.5%—
LMCA17.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index138.51—

Math Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.6 (#84)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Math13991408
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—66.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202566.9%—

Knowledge Too close to call

Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125), Step 3.5 Flash: 39.6 (#132)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Expert13621421
GPQA Diamond65.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate5.9%—

Multilingual Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167), Step 3.5 Flash: 50.5 (#119)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Non-English13171385
LMArena Chinese13571447
LMArena German13411405
LMArena Russian13111385
LMArena French—1421
LMArena Japanese—1354
LMArena Korean—1352
LMArena Spanish—1419

Instruction Following Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179), Step 3.5 Flash: 73.1 (#124)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following13051385

Long Context Too close to call

Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.8 (#117)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Longer Query13271402
Fiction.LiveBench74.2%—

Writing & Preference Step 3.5 Flash leads

Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163), Step 3.5 Flash: 58.8 (#113)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text13401403
LMArena Creative Writing12971357
LMArena Multi-Turn13311405

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3 32B better than Step 3.5 Flash?

Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3 32B 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 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is Qwen3 32B or Step 3.5 Flash better for coding?

Step 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 37.7 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 Qwen3 32B and Step 3.5 Flash share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3 32B has 26 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.5 Flash has 19.

Related comparisons

Go deeper