Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Qwen
Qwen
vs
Stepfun-ai

Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 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

Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Better at math

Step 3.5 Flash wins:

  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Has reasoning mode
Price Advantage
Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507
Benchmark Advantage
Step 3.5 Flash
Context Window
Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507
Speed
Step 3.5 Flash

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureQwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507Step 3.5 Flash
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyQwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507Step 3.5 Flash
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorQwenStepfun-ai
ReleasedJul 2025Jan 2026

Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Step 3.5 Flash Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 with:

Compare Step 3.5 Flash with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 has cheaper input pricing at $0.09/M tokens. Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 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 Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507's score of 14.2.
Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 has a 262,144 token context window, while Step 3.5 Flash has a 256,000 token context window.
Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 does not support vision. Step 3.5 Flash does not support vision.