Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct vs Step 3.5 Flash
Updated October 21, 2026. 25 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct has the edge where what matters is LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 25
- Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct only
- 10
- Step 3.5 Flash only
- 10
- Like-for-like categories
- 6 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Step 3.5 Flash
Step 3.5 Flash leads, 17.0 against 6.7.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Step 3.5 Flash
Step 3.5 Flash takes 262K tokens against 33K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Step 3.5 Flash
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct $0.0012, Step 3.5 Flash $0.0003 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct not benchmarked, Step 3.5 Flash not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Knowledge, 30.7 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct 41.7% against Step 3.5 Flash 83.1%, 41.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct $1.00 against Step 3.5 Flash $0.30 per million output tokens, 3.3x apart.
- Context window
- Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct takes 33K tokens, Step 3.5 Flash 262K.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Bars | Step 3.5 Flash | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 2 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 5 | ||
| Math | 0 | 2 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 4 | ||
| General | 0 | 11 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 25 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aider polyglot | 16.4% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| SWE-bench Verified | 47.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 29.5% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 32.6% | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1276 | 1436 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1261 | 1434 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 6.7 | 17.0 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.5 | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 94.4% | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 41.7% | 83.1% | Step 3.5 Flash |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 3.5% | 24.5% | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1251 | 1411 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1221 | 1421 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1269 | 1421 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GSM8K | 93.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1251 | 1408 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1243 | 1421 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 63.5% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| MMLU | 79.1% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| AI2 Reasoning Challenge | 70.5% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1221 | 1415 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1187 | 1408 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1257 | 1408 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1224 | 1394 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index011
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 66.5% | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 63.0% | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| HellaSwag | 83.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| WinoGrande | 80.8% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text | 1230 | 1403 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1223 | 1385 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1174 | 1357 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: English | 1248 | 1417 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1205 | 1385 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1222 | 1446 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: German | Not measured | 1405 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | Not measured | 1353 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | Not measured | 1351 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: French | Not measured | 1421 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | Not measured | 1419 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1228 | 1385 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: Polish | Not measured | 1389 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1222 | 1404 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1251 | 1402 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1191 | 1372 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1150 | 1360 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Step 3.5 Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Step 3.5 Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Step 3.5 Flash costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | StepFun Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | StepFun |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | November 11, 2024 | January 29, 2026 |
| Context window | 33K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.66 | $0.10 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.00 | $0.30 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct better than Step 3.5 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct has the edge where what matters is LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct or Step 3.5 Flash?
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct costs $0.66 per million input tokens and $1.00 per million output tokens; Step 3.5 Flash costs $0.10 and $0.30. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct or Step 3.5 Flash?
Step 3.5 Flash, with 262K tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks is the Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct vs Step 3.5 Flash comparison based on?
25 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Step 3.5 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.