Model Comparison
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Instruct
vs. Step 3.7 Flash
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba, StepFun
Recommended Pick
StStep 3.7 Flash10 metric winsStrongest on: Throughput, TTFT, Intelligence
Best Value
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Instruct
100.0 value score
54.9 reasoning / $0.35/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Instruct
$0.20/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Instruct
54.9 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
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Instruct has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Speed gap
Step 3.7 Flash generates about 2.6x as many tokens per second as Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Instruct.
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Instruct leads Step 3.7 Flash by 11.2 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Step 3.7 Flash wins 10 measurable categories, including Throughput, TTFT, Intelligence, GPQA.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Instruct
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 Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Instruct | Top Pick St Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.20/1M | $0.20/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.80/1M | $1.15/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.35/1M | $0.44/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | StepFun |
| Release Date | Jul 29, 2025 | May 29, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 150.3 tok/s | 393.2 tok/s |
| TTFT | 928ms | 656ms |
| Latency | 928ms | 5743ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 63.6 |
| Reasoning Score | 54.9 | 43.7 |
| Intelligence | 9.1 | 30.3 |
| Coding | — | 39.6 |
| Math | 66.3 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 65.9% | 80.9% |
| MMLU Pro | 77.7% | — |
| HLE | 6.8% | 19.9% |
| LiveCodeBench | 51.5% | — |
| MATH 500 | 97.5% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 66.3% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 72.7% | — |
| SciCode | 30.4% | 40.0% |
| LCR | 22.7% | 63.7% |
| IFBench | 33.1% | 67.3% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 10.2% | 98.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 6.1% | 35.6% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Instruct offers the best value at $0.20/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Instruct has the strongest reasoning profile with a 54.9 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
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Instruct
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Step 3.7 Flash
- Code generation
- Software development
