Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Qwen
Qwen
vs
Stepfun-ai

Qwen3 32B 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 32B wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Faster response time
  • Better at math

Step 3.5 Flash wins:

  • Larger context window
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
Price Advantage
Qwen3 32B
Benchmark Advantage
Step 3.5 Flash
Context Window
Step 3.5 Flash
Speed
Qwen3 32B

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureQwen3 32BStep 3.5 Flash
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyQwen3 32BStep 3.5 Flash
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorQwenStepfun-ai
ReleasedApr 2025Jan 2026

Qwen3 32B Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Step 3.5 Flash Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Qwen3 32B with:

Compare Step 3.5 Flash with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen3 32B has cheaper input pricing at $0.08/M tokens. Qwen3 32B has cheaper output pricing at $0.24/M tokens.
Step 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 31.6, compared to Qwen3 32B's score of N/A.
Qwen3 32B has a 40,960 token context window, while Step 3.5 Flash has a 256,000 token context window.
Qwen3 32B does not support vision. Step 3.5 Flash does not support vision.