Model Comparison

QvQ-72B-Preview vs Step-3.5-Flash

Comparing QvQ-72B-Preview and Step-3.5-Flash across benchmarks, pricing, and capabilities.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

No common benchmarks found

QvQ-72B-Preview and Step-3.5-Flash don't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Cost data unavailable.

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QvQ-72B-Preview
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
StepFun
Step-3.5-Flash
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.40
Best providerStepFun
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

122.6B diff

Step-3.5-Flash has 122.6B more parameters than QvQ-72B-Preview, making it 167.0% larger.

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QvQ-72B-Preview
73.4Bparameters
StepFun
Step-3.5-Flash
196.0Bparameters
73.4B
QvQ-72B-Preview
196.0B
Step-3.5-Flash

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Step-3.5-Flash specifies input context (65,536 tokens). Only Step-3.5-Flash specifies output context (8,192 tokens).

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QvQ-72B-Preview
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
StepFun
Step-3.5-Flash
Input65,536 tokens
Output8,192 tokens
Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

QvQ-72B-Preview supports multimodal inputs, whereas Step-3.5-Flash does not.

QvQ-72B-Preview can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

QvQ-72B-Preview

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Step-3.5-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

QvQ-72B-Preview is licensed under Qwen, while Step-3.5-Flash uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

QvQ-72B-Preview

Qwen

Open weights

Step-3.5-Flash

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

QvQ-72B-Preview was released on 2024-12-25, while Step-3.5-Flash was released on 2026-02-02.

Step-3.5-Flash is 13 months newer than QvQ-72B-Preview.

QvQ-72B-Preview

Dec 25, 2024

1.3 years ago

Step-3.5-Flash

Feb 2, 2026

2 months ago

1.1yr newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

QvQ-72B-Preview

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Supports multimodal inputs
StepFun
Larger context window (65,536 tokens)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QvQ-72B-Preview
StepFun
Step-3.5-Flash

FAQ

Common questions about QvQ-72B-Preview vs Step-3.5-Flash

QvQ-72B-Preview (Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team) and Step-3.5-Flash (StepFun) each have strengths in different areas. Compare their benchmark scores, pricing, context windows, and capabilities above to determine which fits your needs.
QvQ-72B-Preview scores MathVista: 71.4%, MMMU: 70.3%, MathVision: 35.9%, OlympiadBench: 20.4%. Step-3.5-Flash scores AIME 2025: 97.3%, Tau-bench: 88.2%, LiveCodeBench v6: 86.4%, IMO-AnswerBench: 85.4%, SWE-Bench Verified: 74.4%.
QvQ-72B-Preview supports an unknown number of tokens and Step-3.5-Flash supports 66K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Qwen vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
QvQ-72B-Preview is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team and Step-3.5-Flash is developed by StepFun.