Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Qwen3 32B vs Step 3.5 Flash

Updated October 21, 2026. 30 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace Qwen3 32B Replace Step 3.5 Flash
Qwen3 32BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
7.3
Output $/M
$0.40
0
Step 3.5 FlashStepFun
Coding
No data
Overall
17.0
Output $/M
$0.30
30
vs boards won of 30 shared

Decision reading

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Qwen3 32B has the edge where what matters is Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or LMArena Text: coding, where it leads.

Model AQwen3 32BQwenNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BStep 3.5 FlashStepFunNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
30
Qwen3 32B only
12
Step 3.5 Flash only
5
Like-for-like categories
7 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.

At a glance

Coding index
Qwen3 32B not benchmarked, Step 3.5 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 64.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Qwen3 32B 29.8% against Step 3.5 Flash 94.4%, 64.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Qwen3 32B $0.40 against Step 3.5 Flash $0.30 per million output tokens, 1.3x apart.
Context window
Qwen3 32B takes 131K 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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryQwen3 32BBarsStep 3.5 FlashTies
Coding03
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning05
Math02
Knowledge04
General014
All shared boards030
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
Coding benchmarks for Qwen3 32B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
Aider polyglot40.0%Not measuredOnly Qwen3 32B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)54.6%Not measuredOnly Qwen3 32B measured
SciCode36.0%Not measuredOnly Qwen3 32B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.0%32.6%Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: coding13571436Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: software and IT13661434Step 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
Intelligence benchmarks for Qwen3 32B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index7.317.0Step 3.5 Flash
Epoch Capabilities Index138.4Not measuredOnly Qwen3 32B measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Qwen3 32B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom29.8%94.4%Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Reasoning benchmarks for Qwen3 32B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)66.8%83.1%Step 3.5 Flash
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)7.4%24.5%Step 3.5 Flash
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)65.7%Not measuredOnly Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13341411Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: expert13621421Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13501421Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Qwen3 32B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
AA Math Index73.0Not measuredOnly Qwen3 32B measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)73.0%Not measuredOnly Qwen3 32B measured
OTIS Mock AIME66.9%Not measuredOnly Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: math13991408Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: mathematical work14201421Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Qwen3 32B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)79.8%Not measuredOnly Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: science13721415Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13681408Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: legal and government13241408Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: business and finance13181394Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Qwen3 32B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index014
General benchmarks for Qwen3 32B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
IFBench36.3%66.5%Step 3.5 Flash
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)0.0%63.0%Step 3.5 Flash
DTBench67.5%Not measuredOnly Qwen3 32B measured
LMCA17.3%Not measuredOnly Qwen3 32B measured
Fiction.LiveBench74.2%Not measuredOnly Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text13401403Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: instruction following13051385Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: creative writing12971357Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: English13591417Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: non-English13171385Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Chinese13571446Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: German13411405Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1353Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1351Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1421Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1419Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Russian13111385Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1389Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn13311404Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: longer queries13271402Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: writing and language12981372Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12791360Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Qwen3 32B and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 3.5 FlashLeader
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

Qwen3 32B$0.0003Fits in one request
Step 3.5 Flash$0.0003Fits in one request

Step 3.5 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Qwen3 32B$0.0082Fits in one request
Step 3.5 Flash$0.0059Fits in one request

Step 3.5 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Qwen3 32B$0.032Exceeds the context window
Step 3.5 Flash$0.023Fits in one request

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.

Specifications of Qwen3 32B and Step 3.5 Flash
SpecificationQwen3 32BStepFun Step 3.5 Flash
MakerQwenStepFun
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedApril 28, 2025January 29, 2026
Context window131K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.14$0.10
Output $/Mtok$0.40$0.30
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Qwen3 32B better than Step 3.5 Flash for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Qwen3 32B has the edge where what matters is Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or LMArena Text: coding, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3 32B or Step 3.5 Flash?

Qwen3 32B costs $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.40 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, Qwen3 32B or Step 3.5 Flash?

Step 3.5 Flash, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Qwen3 32B vs Step 3.5 Flash comparison based on?

30 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Qwen3 32B'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.

Compare next