# Qwen3 14B vs Step 3.7 Flash

> Step 3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/qwen3-14b-vs-step-3-7-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 2

## Summary

- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3 14B 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 38.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 31.6% for Qwen3 14B and 40% for Step 3.7 Flash.
- Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.18 / $1.11 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen3 14B.
- Step 3.7 Flash accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 131K.

## Snapshot

| | Qwen3 14B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | StepFun |
| Noometry Index | 35.5 | 37.3 |
| Rank | 225 | 207 |
| Context | 131K | 256K |
| Input $/M | $0.35 | $0.18 |
| Output $/M | $1.40 | $1.11 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)
- Step 3.7 Flash: 40.0 (#150)

| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 31.6% | 40% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 694.12 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)
- Step 3.7 Flash: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 41% | — |

## Reasoning

- Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)
- Step 3.7 Flash: 21.6 (#219)

| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 2.3% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 49.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 39.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 4% | — |
| DTBench | 64% | — |
| LMCA | 18.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 138.23 | — |

## Math

- Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)
- Step 3.7 Flash: 42.9 (#82)

| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 68.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 66.4% | — |

## Knowledge

- Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)
- Step 3.7 Flash: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 63.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.4% | — |

## Long Context

- Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)
- Step 3.7 Flash: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3 14B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 62.5% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Qwen3 14B better than Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Qwen3 14B 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 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

### Is Qwen3 14B or Step 3.7 Flash better for coding?

Step 3.7 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 37.3 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 14B and Step 3.7 Flash share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3 14B has 12 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.7 Flash has 5.