Model Comparison
Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning)
vs. Step 3.5 Flash 2603
Comparing 2 AI models · 7 benchmarks · Alibaba, StepFun
Recommended Pick
StStep 3.5 Flash 260311 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
Best for Coding
Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning)
46.6 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 3.5 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 6.0x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning).
Speed gap
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 generates about 3.2x as many tokens per second as Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 leads Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning) by 1.4 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 wins 11 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.
Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning)
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 Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning) | Top Pick St Step 3.5 Flash 2603 |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.60/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $3.60/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.35/1M | $0.15/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | StepFun |
| Release Date | Apr 22, 2026 | Apr 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 64.0 tok/s | 207.0 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1597ms | 776ms |
| Latency | 1597ms | 10437ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 10.8 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 42.3 | 43.7 |
| Intelligence | 30.5 | 26.0 |
| Coding | 46.6 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 82.9% | 82.6% |
| HLE | 13.6% | 22.6% |
| SciCode | 37.3% | 38.5% |
| LCR | 55.0% | 54.3% |
| IFBench | 45.7% | 66.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 93.6% | 87.4% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 21.2% | 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.
Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 46.6 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
Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning)
- Code generation
- Software development
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
