Model Comparison
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning)
vs. Step 3.7 Flash
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · Alibaba, StepFun
Recommended Pick
St Step 3.7 Flash 12 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, TTFT, Latency
Best Value
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
53.0 reasoning / $0.34/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning)
$0.20/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning)
53.0 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Step 3.7 Flash
37.1 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 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Speed gap
Step 3.7 Flash generates about 3.0x as many tokens per second as Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning) leads Step 3.7 Flash by 5.2 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Step 3.7 Flash leads Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning) by 24.0 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Step 3.7 Flash wins 12 measurable categories, including Throughput, TTFT, Latency, Intelligence.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Step 3.7 Flash
StepFun
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Al Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning) | Top Pick St Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.20/1M | $0.20/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.75/1M | $1.15/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.34/1M | $0.44/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | StepFun |
| Release Date | Oct 3, 2025 | May 29, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 124.3 tok/s | 378.8 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1119ms | 755ms |
| Latency | 17203ms | 6034ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 69.6 |
| Reasoning Score | 53.0 | 47.8 |
| Intelligence | 19.7 | 42.6 |
| Coding | 13.1 | 37.1 |
| Math | 82.3 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 72.0% | 80.9% |
| MMLU Pro | 80.7% | — |
| HLE | 8.7% | 19.9% |
| LiveCodeBench | 69.7% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 82.3% | — |
| SciCode | 28.8% | 40.0% |
| LCR | 40.7% | 63.7% |
| IFBench | 45.1% | 67.3% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 19.9% | 98.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 5.3% | 35.6% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.20/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 53.0 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Step 3.7 Flash reaches a 37.1 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 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Step 3.7 Flash
- Code generation
- Software development
