Model Comparison
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning)
vs. Step 3.5 Flash 2603
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba, StepFun
Recommended Pick
St Step 3.5 Flash 2603 15 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Blended price
Best Value
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
100.0 value score
47.9 reasoning / $0.15/1M
Lowest Price
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
$0.10/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
47.9 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
34.6 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 1.8x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning).
Speed gap
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 generates about 2.9x as many tokens per second as Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 leads Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) by 17.3 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 leads Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) by 27.5 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3 8B (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?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Al Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) | Top Pick St Step 3.5 Flash 2603 |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.18/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.20/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.18/1M | $0.15/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | StepFun |
| Release Date | Apr 28, 2025 | Apr 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 64.5 tok/s | 188.8 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1303ms | 862ms |
| Latency | 1303ms | 11457ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 51.8 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 30.6 | 47.9 |
| Intelligence | 10.6 | 38.5 |
| Coding | 7.1 | 34.6 |
| Math | 24.3 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 45.2% | 82.6% |
| MMLU Pro | 64.3% | — |
| HLE | 2.8% | 22.6% |
| LiveCodeBench | 20.2% | — |
| MATH 500 | 82.8% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 24.3% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 24.3% | — |
| SciCode | 16.8% | 38.5% |
| LCR | 0.0% | 54.3% |
| IFBench | 28.6% | 66.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 24.9% | 87.4% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 2.3% | 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 47.9 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 reaches a 34.6 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 8B (Non-reasoning)
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
