Model Comparison
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
vs. Step 3.7 Flash
Comparing 2 AI models · 0 benchmarks · Alibaba, StepFun
Recommended Pick
StStep 3.7 Flash6 metric winsStrongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Step 3.7 Flash
100.0 value score
30.9 reasoning / $0.44/1M
Lowest Price
Step 3.7 Flash
$0.20/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
57.7 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
71.9 coding index
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 10x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B.
Speed gap
Step 3.7 Flash generates about 2.6x as many tokens per second as Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B.
Reasoning gap
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads Step 3.7 Flash by 26.8 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads Step 3.7 Flash by 32.3 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Step 3.7 Flash
StepFun
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Secure AI Chat made in Europe
Processing terms vary by selected model. Review the current Privacy Policy and DPA before using sensitive data.
OpenAI-compatible inference
Choose from the current model catalog. Processing terms vary by selected model and service.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Al Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Top Pick St Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $2.00/1M | $0.20/1M |
| Output Cost | $6.00/1M | $1.15/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.00/1M | $0.44/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | StepFun |
| Release Date | Aug 12, 2026 | May 29, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 40.0 tok/s | 104.2 tok/s |
| TTFT | 2630ms | 2680ms |
| Latency | 52610ms | 21870ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 27.2 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 57.7 | 30.9 |
| Intelligence | 57.7 | 30.9 |
| Coding | 71.9 | 39.6 |
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.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has the strongest reasoning profile with a 57.7 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B reaches a 71.9 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
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Step 3.7 Flash
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
