Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Qwen
Qwen
vs
S
Stepfun-ai

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs Step 3.5 Flash

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

OpenClaw

Deploy OpenClaw in Under 1 Minute— We handle hosting, scaling, and maintenance

Key Takeaways

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct wins:

  • Better at math

Step 3.5 Flash wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Has reasoning mode
Price Advantage
Step 3.5 Flash
Benchmark Advantage
Step 3.5 Flash
Context Window
Step 3.5 Flash
Speed
Step 3.5 Flash

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureQwen2.5 72B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyQwen2.5 72B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorQwenStepfun-ai
ReleasedSep 2024Jan 2026

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Step 3.5 Flash Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Qwen2.5 72B Instruct with:

Compare Step 3.5 Flash with:

See all model comparisons

Frequently Asked Questions

Step 3.5 Flash has cheaper input pricing at $0.10/M tokens. Step 3.5 Flash has cheaper output pricing at $0.30/M tokens.
Step 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 31.6, compared to Qwen2.5 72B Instruct's score of 11.9.
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has a 32,768 token context window, while Step 3.5 Flash has a 256,000 token context window.
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct does not support vision. Step 3.5 Flash does not support vision.

Built by @aellman

Archive
Follow us:
Advertise | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2026 68 Ventures, LLC. All rights reserved.