Model Comparison
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
vs. Step 3.5 Flash 2603
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba, StepFun
Recommended Pick
StStep 3.5 Flash 260314 metric winsStrongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
100.0 value score
43.7 reasoning / $0.15/1M
Lowest Price
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
$0.10/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
43.7 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 is 4.7x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B.
Reasoning gap
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 leads Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B by 16.2 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 wins 14 measurable categories, including Value, Input price, Output price, Blended price.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
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 Instruct 72B | Top Pick St Step 3.5 Flash 2603 |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.47/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.49/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.48/1M | $0.15/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | StepFun |
| Release Date | Sep 19, 2024 | Apr 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 198.6 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 855ms |
| Latency | — | 10925ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 19.7 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 27.5 | 43.7 |
| Intelligence | 9.6 | 26.0 |
| Math | 14.0 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 49.1% | 82.6% |
| MMLU Pro | 72.0% | — |
| HLE | 4.2% | 22.6% |
| LiveCodeBench | 27.6% | — |
| MATH 500 | 85.8% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 14.0% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 16.0% | — |
| SciCode | 26.7% | 38.5% |
| LCR | 20.3% | 54.3% |
| IFBench | 36.9% | 66.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 34.5% | 87.4% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 4.5% | 32.6% |
Key Takeaways
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 offers the best value at $0.10/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 has the strongest reasoning profile with a 43.7 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
