Model Comparison
Qwen2.5 Turbo
vs. Step 3.7 Flash
Comparing 2 AI models · 11 benchmarks · Alibaba, StepFun
Recommended Pick
StStep 3.7 Flash7 metric winsStrongest on: Throughput, TTFT, Reasoning
Best Value
Qwen2.5 Turbo
100.0 value score
28.8 reasoning / $0.09/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen2.5 Turbo
$0.05/1M 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
Best value
Qwen2.5 Turbo has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen2.5 Turbo is 4.0x cheaper on input tokens than Step 3.7 Flash.
Speed gap
Step 3.7 Flash generates about 3.6x as many tokens per second as Qwen2.5 Turbo.
Reasoning gap
Step 3.7 Flash leads Qwen2.5 Turbo by 14.9 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Step 3.7 Flash wins 7 measurable categories, including Throughput, TTFT, Reasoning, Intelligence.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen2.5 Turbo
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 Turbo | Top Pick St Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.05/1M | $0.20/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.20/1M | $1.15/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.09/1M | $0.44/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | StepFun |
| Release Date | Nov 18, 2024 | May 29, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 114.3 tok/s | 407.7 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1062ms | 704ms |
| Latency | 1062ms | 5610ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 30.3 |
| Reasoning Score | 28.8 | 43.7 |
| Intelligence | 6.3 | 30.3 |
| Coding | — | 39.6 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 41.0% | 80.9% |
| MMLU Pro | 63.3% | — |
| HLE | 4.2% | 19.9% |
| LiveCodeBench | 16.3% | — |
| MATH 500 | 80.5% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 12.0% | — |
| SciCode | 15.3% | 40.0% |
| LCR | — | 63.7% |
| IFBench | — | 67.3% |
| TAU-bench v2 | — | 98.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | — | 35.6% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen2.5 Turbo offers the best value at $0.05/1M,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 Turbo
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Step 3.7 Flash
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
