Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3.5-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Step 3.7 Flash StepFun

37.3

Rank #207 Reported

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen3.5-Flash 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 reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 33.7 to 21.6.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.18 / $1.11 for Step 3.7 Flash.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.
  • Step 3.7 Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen3.5-FlashStep 3.7 Flash
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)StepFun
Noometry Index42.537.3
Released2026-02-232026-05-29
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M256K
Max output66K256K
Input $ / M tokens$0.10$0.18
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$1.11
Results tracked325

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

Category by category

Coding Step 3.7 Flash leads

Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242), Step 3.7 Flash: 40.0 (#150)

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashStep 3.7 Flash
ALE-Bench221.8694.12
LMArena WebDev1244—
SciCode—40%
LMArena Coding1412—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3.5-Flash: —, Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashStep 3.7 Flash
Vending-Bench 2462.69—

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72), Step 3.7 Flash: 21.6 (#219)

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashStep 3.7 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)—39.7%
CritPt—2.3%
Chess Puzzles21%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1403—
Mystery Game Puzzles20%—
DTBench82.9%—
LMCA29.1%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.98—

Math Step 3.7 Flash leads

Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158), Step 3.7 Flash: 42.9 (#82)

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashStep 3.7 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)18.2%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—68.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584.4%—
LMArena Math1407—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)6.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashStep 3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond82.3%—
SimpleQA Verified20.3%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.5%—
LMArena Expert1407—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Non-English1385—
LMArena Chinese1446—
LMArena French1412—
LMArena German1390—
LMArena Japanese1368—
LMArena Korean1344—
LMArena Russian1379—
LMArena Spanish1400—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1374—

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1392—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1397—
LMArena Creative Writing1343—
LMArena Multi-Turn1393—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3.5-Flash better than Step 3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-Flash or Step 3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Step 3.7 Flash lists at $0.18 and $1.11.

Is Qwen3.5-Flash or Step 3.7 Flash better for coding?

Step 3.7 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3.5-Flash and Step 3.7 Flash share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen3.5-Flash has 32 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.7 Flash has 5.

Related comparisons

Go deeper