Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3 32B vs Step 3.7 Flash

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index. Step 3.7 Flash costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Step 3.7 Flash StepFun

37.3

Rank #207 Reported

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3 32B 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 39.7.
  • Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.18 / $1.11 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
  • Step 3.7 Flash accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Qwen3 32BStep 3.7 Flash
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)StepFun
Noometry Index39.237.3
Released2025-042026-05-29
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K256K
Max output16K256K
Input $ / M tokens$0.70$0.18
Output $ / M tokens$2.80$1.11
Results tracked265

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

Category by category

Coding Step 3.7 Flash leads

Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190), Step 3.7 Flash: 40.0 (#150)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.7 Flash
SciCode35.4%40%
Aider Polyglot40%—
LMArena Coding1358—
ALE-Bench—694.12

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.7 Flash
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard48.7%—

Reasoning Step 3.7 Flash leads

Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241), Step 3.7 Flash: 21.6 (#219)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.7 Flash
CritPt0.3%2.3%
Kagi LLM Benchmark54.9%—
NYT Connections (extended)—39.7%
Chess Puzzles5%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1334—
DTBench67.5%—
LMCA17.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index138.51—

Math Step 3.7 Flash leads

Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99), Step 3.7 Flash: 42.9 (#82)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.7 Flash
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—68.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202566.9%—
LMArena Math1399—

Knowledge Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond65.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate5.9%—
LMArena Expert1362—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Non-English1317—
LMArena Chinese1357—
LMArena German1341—
LMArena Russian1311—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1305—

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.7 Flash
Fiction.LiveBench74.2%—
LMArena Longer Query1327—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1340—
LMArena Creative Writing1297—
LMArena Multi-Turn1331—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3 32B better than Step 3.7 Flash?

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index. Step 3.7 Flash costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

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

Is Qwen3 32B or Step 3.7 Flash better for coding?

Step 3.7 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 37.7 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 32B and Step 3.7 Flash share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3 32B has 26 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.7 Flash has 5.

Related comparisons

Go deeper