Model Comparison
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus
vs. Step 3.7 Flash
Comparing 2 AI models · 7 benchmarks · Alibaba, StepFun
Recommended Pick
StStep 3.7 Flash12 metric winsStrongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Step 3.7 Flash
100.0 value score
43.7 reasoning / $0.44/1M
Lowest Price
Step 3.7 Flash
$0.20/1M 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
Step 3.7 Flash has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Step 3.7 Flash is 2.0x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3.5 Omni Plus.
Speed gap
Step 3.7 Flash generates about 7.1x as many tokens per second as Qwen3.5 Omni Plus.
Reasoning gap
Step 3.7 Flash leads Qwen3.5 Omni Plus by 1.3 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Step 3.7 Flash wins 12 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.
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus
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 Qwen3.5 Omni Plus | Top Pick St Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.40/1M | $0.20/1M |
| Output Cost | $4.80/1M | $1.15/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.50/1M | $0.44/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | StepFun |
| Release Date | Mar 30, 2026 | May 29, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 56.8 tok/s | 404.4 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1261ms | 691ms |
| Latency | 1261ms | 5636ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 28.3 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 42.4 | 43.7 |
| Intelligence | 30.6 | 30.3 |
| Coding | — | 39.6 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 82.6% | 80.9% |
| HLE | 13.9% | 19.9% |
| SciCode | 40.5% | 40.0% |
| LCR | 52.7% | 63.7% |
| IFBench | 51.2% | 67.3% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 88.3% | 98.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 21.2% | 35.6% |
Key Takeaways
Step 3.7 Flash offers the best value at $0.20/1M,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
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
Step 3.7 Flash
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
