Qwen-Plus vs Step 3.5 Flash
Step 3.5 Flash costs 2.6x less per output token than Qwen-Plus ($0.30 vs $0.78 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 23 benchmarks have a result for both.
Qwen-Plus or Step 3.5 Flash: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Qwen-Plus for a larger context window (1M against 262K tokens) and work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 23
- Qwen-Plus only
- 5
- Step 3.5 Flash only
- 12
- Like-for-like categories
- 5 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
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
No call
Only Step 3.5 Flash has a AA Intelligence Index result, 17.0.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen-Plus
Qwen-Plus takes 1M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Step 3.5 Flash
Qwen-Plus $0.0006, Step 3.5 Flash $0.0003 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Qwen-Plus not benchmarked, Step 3.5 Flash not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Coding, 16.6 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- LMArena Text: coding: Qwen-Plus 1328 against Step 3.5 Flash 1436, 18.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Qwen-Plus $0.78 against Step 3.5 Flash $0.30 per million output tokens, 2.6x apart.
- Context window
- Qwen-Plus takes 1M 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 | Qwen-Plus | Bars | Step 3.5 Flash | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 2 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 3 | ||
| Math | 0 | 2 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 4 | ||
| General | 0 | 12 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 23 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
| Benchmark | Qwen-Plus | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 32.6% | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1328 | 1436 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1343 | 1434 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen-Plus | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 17.0 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen-Plus | 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 40 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
| Benchmark | Qwen-Plus | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 83.1% | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 24.5% | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 48.1% | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1317 | 1411 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1328 | 1421 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1333 | 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 | Qwen-Plus | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 17.8% | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| MATH level 5 | 65.3% | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1326 | 1408 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1332 | 1421 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Qwen-Plus | Step 3.5 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text: science | 1352 | 1415 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1350 | 1408 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1349 | 1408 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1303 | 1394 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen-Plus | 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 index012
| Benchmark | Qwen-Plus | 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 |
| DTBench | 81.1% | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMCA | 24.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text | 1326 | 1403 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1303 | 1385 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1292 | 1357 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: English | 1339 | 1417 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1310 | 1385 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1347 | 1446 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: German | Not measured | 1405 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1251 | 1353 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| 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 | 1323 | 1385 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: Polish | Not measured | 1389 | Only Step 3.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1336 | 1404 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1324 | 1402 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1296 | 1372 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1270 | 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 | Qwen-Plus | 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 | Qwen-Plus | StepFun Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | StepFun |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | February 1, 2025 | January 29, 2026 |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.26 | $0.10 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.78 | $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 Qwen-Plus better than Step 3.5 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen-Plus for a larger context window (1M against 262K tokens) and work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Qwen-Plus or Step 3.5 Flash?
Qwen-Plus costs $0.26 per million input tokens and $0.78 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, Qwen-Plus or Step 3.5 Flash?
Qwen-Plus, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Qwen-Plus vs Step 3.5 Flash comparison based on?
23 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Qwen-Plus'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.