Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Step 3.7 Flash
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads Step 3.7 Flash on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 39.9 to 19.5, and Step 3.7 Flash costs 5.2x less per output token ($1.15 vs $6.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 6 benchmarks have a result for both.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Step 3.7 Flash: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B for a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens).
- Shared results
- 6
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B only
- 1
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 12
- Like-for-like categories
- 4 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
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads, 39.9 against 19.5.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has a AA Agentic Index result, 50.1.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Step 3.7 Flash has a Design Arena: websites result, 1196.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B takes 1.05M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Step 3.7 Flash
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $0.0050, Step 3.7 Flash $0.0008 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B not benchmarked, Step 3.7 Flash not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Coding, 21.3 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- AA Coding Index: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 71.9 against Step 3.7 Flash 39.6, 32.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $6.00 against Step 3.7 Flash $1.15 per million output tokens, 5.2x apart.
- Context window
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B takes 1.05M tokens, Step 3.7 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 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Bars | Step 3.7 Flash | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 2 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 2 | 0 | ||
| General | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 6 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 71.9 | 39.6 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| SciCode | 54.1% | 43.9% | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 35.6% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 694.1 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 39.9 | 19.5 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 50.1 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 98.5% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 93.5% | 80.9% | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 42.4% | 21.4% | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 18 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1196 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1177 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1158 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | Not measured | 1173 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | Not measured | 1129 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1182 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: SVG | Not measured | 1084 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | Not measured | 1152 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 67.3% | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 80.3% | 73.7% | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 44 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Step 3.7 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 3.7 Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Step 3.7 Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Step 3.7 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 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | StepFun Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | StepFun |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | August 12, 2026 | May 28, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $2.00 | $0.20 |
| Output $/Mtok | $6.00 | $1.15 |
| 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 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B better than Step 3.7 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B for a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens).
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Step 3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2.00 per million input tokens and $6.00 per million output tokens; Step 3.7 Flash costs $0.20 and $1.15. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Step 3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Step 3.7 Flash comparison based on?
6 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Step 3.7 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.