Qwen3 Coder Next vs Step 3.7 Flash
Updated October 21, 2026. 9 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.
Qwen3 Coder Next has the edge where output tokens cost 1.4x less, and where what matters is AA Coding Index or SciCode, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 9
- Qwen3 Coder Next only
- 2
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 9
- Like-for-like categories
- 5 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 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash leads, 19.5 against 9.2.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3 Coder Next has a AA Agentic Index result, 0.9.
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
No call
Both take 262K tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3 Coder Next
Qwen3 Coder Next $0.0005, Step 3.7 Flash $0.0008 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Qwen3 Coder Next not benchmarked, Step 3.7 Flash not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- General, 29.4 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- IFBench: Qwen3 Coder Next 35.2% against Step 3.7 Flash 67.3%, 32.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Qwen3 Coder Next $0.80 against Step 3.7 Flash $1.15 per million output tokens, 1.4x apart.
- Context window
- Both take 262K tokens.
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 Coder Next | Bars | Step 3.7 Flash | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 3 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 2 | ||
| General | 0 | 2 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 9 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
| Benchmark | Qwen3 Coder Next | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 36.2 | 39.6 | Step 3.7 Flash |
| SciCode | 36.2% | 43.9% | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 18.2% | 35.6% | Step 3.7 Flash |
| WeirdML | 34.4% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 694.1 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Qwen3 Coder Next | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 9.2 | 19.5 | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Qwen3 Coder Next | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 0.9 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 79.5% | 98.5% | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Qwen3 Coder Next | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 73.7% | 80.9% | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 10.1% | 21.4% | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3 Coder Next | 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 Coder Next | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 17 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3 Coder Next | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1196 | Only Step 3.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1179 | 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 | 1172 | 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 | 1085 | 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 index02
| Benchmark | Qwen3 Coder Next | Step 3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 35.2% | 67.3% | Step 3.7 Flash |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 47.0% | 73.7% | Step 3.7 Flash |
| 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 Coder Next | 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
Qwen3 Coder Next costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3 Coder Next costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3 Coder Next 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 Coder Next | StepFun Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | StepFun |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | February 4, 2026 | May 28, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.12 | $0.20 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.80 | $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 Coder Next better than Step 3.7 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Qwen3 Coder Next has the edge where output tokens cost 1.4x less, and where what matters is AA Coding Index or SciCode, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 Coder Next or Step 3.7 Flash?
Qwen3 Coder Next costs $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.80 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 Coder Next or Step 3.7 Flash?
Neither: both take 262K tokens.
How many benchmarks is the Qwen3 Coder Next vs Step 3.7 Flash comparison based on?
9 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Qwen3 Coder Next'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.