Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3.8 27B vs Step 3.7 Flash

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Step 3.7 Flash StepFun

37.3

Rank #207 Reported

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.8 27B scores higher in 2 categories and Step 3.7 Flash in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 41.0 to 21.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 54.5% for Qwen3.8 27B and 39.7% for Step 3.7 Flash.
  • Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.18 / $1.11 per million input/output tokens, against $0.04 / $2.30 for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Qwen3.8 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 256K.

Side by side

Qwen3.8 27BStep 3.7 Flash
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)StepFun
Noometry Index46.037.3
Released2026-08-142026-05-29
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K256K
Max output33K256K
Input $ / M tokens$0.04$0.18
Output $ / M tokens$2.30$1.11
Results tracked315

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44), Step 3.7 Flash: 40.0 (#150)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 3.7 Flash
SciCode46.6%40%
LMArena WebDev1593—
LMArena Coding1482—
ALE-Bench—694.12

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 3.7 Flash
APEX-Agents47.5%—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54), Step 3.7 Flash: 21.6 (#219)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 3.7 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)54.5%39.7%
CritPt5.4%2.3%
ARC-AGI-242.4%—
ARC-AGI-187.5%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1460—
DTBench88%—
LMCA41.4%—
Surface Evolver Bench45%—
Epoch Capabilities Index149.38—

Math Step 3.7 Flash leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161), Step 3.7 Flash: 42.9 (#82)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 3.7 Flash
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—68.5%
ProofBench16%—
LMArena Math1456—

Knowledge Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Expert1482—

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Vision1271—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Non-English1430—
LMArena Chinese1504—
LMArena French1465—
LMArena German1438—
LMArena Japanese1384—
LMArena Korean1393—
LMArena Russian1415—
LMArena Spanish1448—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1439—

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1450—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43), Step 3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1441—
LMArena Creative Writing1384—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1671—
LMArena Multi-Turn1441—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3.8 27B better than Step 3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 27B 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; Qwen3.8 27B lists at $0.04 and $2.30.

Is Qwen3.8 27B or Step 3.7 Flash better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 40.0 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.8 27B does, with 262K tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3.8 27B and Step 3.7 Flash share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.8 27B has 31 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.7 Flash has 5.

Related comparisons

Go deeper