The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Qwen3.8 Flash vs Step-3.5-Flash

Qwen3.8 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 49.6 to 37.3. Step-3.5-Flash is 1.3x cheaper per token.

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · StepFun · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Qwen3.8 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 49.6 to 37.3, ranking #16 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3.8 Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Step-3.5-Flash is roughly 1.3x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Qwen3.8 Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Qwen3.8 Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 49.6 and ranks #16 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026

Choose Step-3.5-Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 1.3x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Qwen3.8 Flash
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Step-3.5-Flash
StepFun
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
49.6
#16
37.3
#61
Reasoning
49.2
#16
37.3
#62
Coding
36.6
#20
20.4
#88
Agents
35.5
#14
15.3
#74
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$0.15 / M
$0.10 / M
Output price
$0.47 / M
$0.40 / M
Context window
1,000,000
65,536

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
Qwen3.8 Flash
Step-3.5-Flash
Math
32.6#55
33.8#50
Tool use
31.6#10
12.9#93
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

22 reported for Qwen3.8 Flash · 7 for Step-3.5-Flash

1 shared

Qwen3.8 Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (LiveCodeBench v6), while Step-3.5-Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.

Qwen3.8 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Sep 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Step-3.5-Flash costs less

For input processing, Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens) is 1.5x more expensive than Step-3.5-Flash ($0.10/1M tokens).

For output processing, Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.47/1M tokens) is 1.2x more expensive than Step-3.5-Flash ($0.40/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Qwen3.8 Flash 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 Sep 01 2026 • llm-stats.com
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8 Flash
Input tokens$0.15
Output tokens$0.47
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

71.0B diff

Step-3.5-Flash has 71.0B more parameters than Qwen3.8 Flash, making it 56.8% larger.

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8 Flash
125.0Bparameters
StepFun
Step-3.5-Flash
196.0Bparameters
125.0B
Qwen3.8 Flash
196.0B
Step-3.5-Flash

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Qwen3.8 Flash accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Step-3.5-Flash's 65,536 tokens. Qwen3.8 Flash can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Step-3.5-Flash is limited to 8,192 tokens.

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8 Flash
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
StepFun
Step-3.5-Flash
Input65,536 tokens
Output8,192 tokens
Tue Sep 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen3.8 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Step-3.5-Flash does not.

Qwen3.8 Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Qwen3.8 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Step-3.5-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Qwen3.8 Flash is licensed under a proprietary license, 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.

Qwen3.8 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

Step-3.5-Flash

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Qwen3.8 Flash was released on 2026-08-26, while Step-3.5-Flash was released on 2026-02-02.

Qwen3.8 Flash is 7 months newer than Step-3.5-Flash.

Qwen3.8 Flash

Aug 26, 2026

5 days ago

6mo newer
Step-3.5-Flash

Feb 2, 2026

7 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

Qwen3.8 Flash is available from Novita. Step-3.5-Flash is available from StepFun.

Qwen3.8 Flash

novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.47/1M

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→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Qwen3.8 Flash and Step-3.5-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Qwen3.8 Flash
✓ Preferred
Step-3.5-Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Qwen3.8 Flash vs Step-3.5-Flash.

Which is better, Qwen3.8 Flash or Step-3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 49.6 to 37.3. Qwen3.8 Flash 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 capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Qwen3.8 Flash compare to Step-3.5-Flash in benchmarks?

Qwen3.8 Flash scores MathVision: 95.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 91.9%, GPQA: 91.7%, CharXiv-R: 90.6%, RealWorldQA: 88.5%. 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%.

Is Qwen3.8 Flash cheaper than Step-3.5-Flash?

Step-3.5-Flash is 1.5x cheaper for input tokens. Qwen3.8 Flash costs $0.15/M input and $0.47/M output via novita. Step-3.5-Flash costs $0.10/M input and $0.40/M output via stepfun.

What are the context window sizes for Qwen3.8 Flash and Step-3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash supports 1.0M 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.

What are the main differences between Qwen3.8 Flash and Step-3.5-Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (49.6 vs 37.3), context window (1.0M vs 66K), input pricing ($0.15 vs $0.10/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Qwen3.8 Flash and Step-3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team and Step-3.5-Flash is developed by StepFun.

Related comparisons