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

Qwen3.5 397B A17B vs Step 3.5 Flash

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

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

Join the Price Per Token Community

Key Takeaways

Qwen3.5 397B A17B wins:

  • Larger context window
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Supports vision

Step 3.5 Flash wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Faster response time
  • Has reasoning mode
Price Advantage
Step 3.5 Flash
Benchmark Advantage
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Context Window
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Speed
Step 3.5 Flash

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureQwen3.5 397B A17BStep 3.5 Flash
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyQwen3.5 397B A17BStep 3.5 Flash
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorQwenStepfun-ai
ReleasedFeb 2026Jan 2026

Qwen3.5 397B A17B Modalities

Input
textimagevideo
Output
text

Step 3.5 Flash Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

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.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 37.4, compared to Step 3.5 Flash's score of 31.6.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B has a 262,144 token context window, while Step 3.5 Flash has a 256,000 token context window.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B supports 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.