Model Comparison
Qwen2.5 Max
vs. Step 3.7 Flash
Comparing 2 AI models · 11 benchmarks · Alibaba, StepFun
Recommended Pick
StStep 3.7 Flash6 metric winsStrongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Lowest Price
Qwen2.5 Max
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Step 3.7 Flash
43.7 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Step 3.7 Flash
39.6 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
Qwen2.5 Max is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Step 3.7 Flash.
Reasoning gap
Step 3.7 Flash leads Qwen2.5 Max by 7.7 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Step 3.7 Flash wins 6 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, GPQA.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen2.5 Max
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Step 3.7 Flash
StepFun
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Chat with leading AI models
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Al Qwen2.5 Max | Top Pick St Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.00/1M | $0.20/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.00/1M | $1.15/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $0.44/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | StepFun |
| Release Date | Jan 28, 2025 | May 29, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 407.7 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 704ms |
| Latency | — | 5610ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | — | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 36.0 | 43.7 |
| Intelligence | 10.2 | 30.3 |
| Coding | — | 39.6 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 58.7% | 80.9% |
| MMLU Pro | 76.2% | — |
| HLE | 4.5% | 19.9% |
| LiveCodeBench | 35.9% | — |
| MATH 500 | 83.5% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 23.3% | — |
| SciCode | 33.7% | 40.0% |
| LCR | — | 63.7% |
| IFBench | — | 67.3% |
| TAU-bench v2 | — | 98.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | — | 35.6% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen2.5 Max offers the best value at $0.00/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Step 3.7 Flash has the strongest reasoning profile with a 43.7 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Step 3.7 Flash reaches a 39.6 coding index,making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Qwen2.5 Max
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Step 3.7 Flash
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
