Model Comparison

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Step-3.5-Flash

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks. Step-3.5-Flash is 7.7x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

5 benchmarks

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B outperforms in 2 benchmarks (SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.0), while Step-3.5-Flash is better at 2 benchmarks (IMO-AnswerBench, LiveCodeBench v6).

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks.

Tue Apr 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Step-3.5-Flash costs less

For input processing, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($0.60/1M tokens) is 6.0x more expensive than Step-3.5-Flash ($0.10/1M tokens).

For output processing, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($3.60/1M tokens) is 9.0x more expensive than Step-3.5-Flash ($0.40/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is more expensive than Step-3.5-Flash.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Apr 07 2026 • llm-stats.com
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Input tokens$0.60
Output tokens$3.60
Best providerNovita
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

201.0B diff

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B has 201.0B more parameters than Step-3.5-Flash, making it 102.6% larger.

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
397.0Bparameters
StepFun
Step-3.5-Flash
196.0Bparameters
397.0B
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
196.0B
Step-3.5-Flash

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to Step-3.5-Flash's 65,536 tokens. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B can generate longer responses up to 64,000 tokens, while Step-3.5-Flash is limited to 8,192 tokens.

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Input262,144 tokens
Output64,000 tokens
StepFun
Step-3.5-Flash
Input65,536 tokens
Output8,192 tokens
Tue Apr 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Step-3.5-Flash does not.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Step-3.5-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under Apache 2.0.

Both models share the same licensing terms, providing consistent usage rights.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Step-3.5-Flash

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B was released on 2026-02-16, while Step-3.5-Flash was released on 2026-02-02.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is 0 month newer than Step-3.5-Flash.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Feb 16, 2026

1 months ago

2w newer
Step-3.5-Flash

Feb 2, 2026

2 months ago

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

Provider Availability

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is available from Novita. Step-3.5-Flash is available from StepFun.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.60/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.60/1M

Step-3.5-Flash

stepfun logo
StepFun
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Larger context window (262,144 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Higher SWE-Bench Verified score (76.4% vs 74.4%)
Higher Terminal-Bench 2.0 score (52.5% vs 51.0%)
StepFun
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Higher IMO-AnswerBench score (85.4% vs 80.9%)
Higher LiveCodeBench v6 score (86.4% vs 83.6%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
StepFun
Step-3.5-Flash

FAQ

Common questions about Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Step-3.5-Flash

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team and Step-3.5-Flash is made by StepFun. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B scores MMLU-Redux: 94.9%, HMMT 2025: 94.8%, C-Eval: 93.0%, HMMT25: 92.7%, IFEval: 92.6%. 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%.
Step-3.5-Flash is 6.0x cheaper for input tokens. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B costs $0.60/M input and $3.60/M output via novita. Step-3.5-Flash costs $0.10/M input and $0.40/M output via stepfun.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B supports 262K 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 context window (262K vs 66K), input pricing ($0.60 vs $0.10/M), multimodal support (yes vs no). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team and Step-3.5-Flash is developed by StepFun.