Model Comparison
QwQ 32B
vs. Step 3.5 Flash 2603
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba, StepFun
Recommended Pick
St Step 3.5 Flash 2603 13 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output 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 6.6x cheaper on input tokens than QwQ 32B.
Speed gap
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 generates about 6.4x as many tokens per second as QwQ 32B.
Reasoning gap
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 leads QwQ 32B by 2.3 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 wins 13 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.
QwQ 32B
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 QwQ 32B | Top Pick St Step 3.5 Flash 2603 |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.66/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $1.00/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.74/1M | $0.15/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | StepFun |
| Release Date | Mar 5, 2025 | Apr 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 30.9 tok/s | 198.7 tok/s |
| TTFT | 431ms | 932ms |
| Latency | 81150ms | 10999ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 19.2 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 45.6 | 47.9 |
| Intelligence | 19.7 | 38.5 |
| Coding | — | 34.6 |
| Math | 29.0 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 59.3% | 82.6% |
| MMLU Pro | 76.4% | — |
| HLE | 8.2% | 22.6% |
| LiveCodeBench | 63.1% | — |
| MATH 500 | 95.7% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 29.0% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 78.0% | — |
| SciCode | 35.8% | 38.5% |
| LCR | 25.0% | 54.3% |
| IFBench | 38.8% | 66.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | — | 87.4% |
| TerminalBench Hard | — | 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
QwQ 32B
- 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
