Model comparison
Qwen3.5-9B vs Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 3.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Step 3.7 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
StepFunSummary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.5-9B scores higher in 1 category and Step 3.7 Flash in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Step 3.7 Flash leads 42.9 to 34.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is MathArena Final-Answer Competitions: 48.5% for Qwen3.5-9B and 68.5% for Step 3.7 Flash.
- Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.18 / $1.11 for Step 3.7 Flash.
- Qwen3.5-9B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 256K.
Side by side
| Qwen3.5-9B | Step 3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | StepFun |
| Noometry Index | 33.8 | 37.3 |
| Released | 2026-02-23 | 2026-05-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | 256K |
| Max output | 66K | 256K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.10 | $0.18 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $1.11 |
| Results tracked | 10 | 5 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Step 3.7 Flash leads
Qwen3.5-9B: 35.9 (#217), Step 3.7 Flash: 40.0 (#150)
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3.5-9B: 14.5 (#151), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 9.2% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-9B leads
Qwen3.5-9B: 23.1 (#182), Step 3.7 Flash: 21.6 (#219)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.3% | 2.3% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 39.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 12% | — |
| DTBench | 71.2% | — |
| LMCA | 24.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 139.46 | — |
Math Step 3.7 Flash leads
Qwen3.5-9B: 34.8 (#192), Step 3.7 Flash: 42.9 (#82)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 48.5% | 68.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 61.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#84), Step 3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 79% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.5-9B better than Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 3.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Step 3.7 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-9B or Step 3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Step 3.7 Flash lists at $0.18 and $1.11.
Is Qwen3.5-9B or Step 3.7 Flash better for coding?
Step 3.7 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 35.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5-9B does, with 262K tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3.5-9B and Step 3.7 Flash share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.5-9B has 10 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.7 Flash has 5.