Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B vs Step 1 (32K)
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B comes out ahead, 49 to 18 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B
49/100- ECI88.2
- Price$0.10 / $0.10
- Context33K
StepFunStep 1 (32K)
18/100- ECI—
- Price$2.05 / $9.59
- Context33K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B is our pick
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B is the better all-round choice, scoring 49/100 against Step 1 (32K) (18). It leads on price. Step 1 (32K) wins on inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceQwen2.5-Coder-0.5BQwen2.5-Coder-0.5B $0.10 · Step 1 (32K) $3.94 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameQwen2.5-Coder-0.5B 32,768 · Step 1 (32K) 32,768 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwen2.5-Coder-0.5B: Text · Step 1 (32K): Text
- Self-hostingQwen2.5-Coder-0.5BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B | Step 1 (32K) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 97 | 22 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 0 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 49/100 | 18/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5BAlibaba (Qwen) | Step 1 (32K)StepFun |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 88.2 | — |
| ECI rank | #148 of 148 | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 (best) | $2.05 |
| Output | $0.10 (best) | $9.59 |
| Cached input | — | $0.41 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.10 (best) | $3.94 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Official StepFun (Global) API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 32,768 tokens | 32,768 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenApache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | step-1-32k |
| API providers | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Nov 12, 2024 | Jan 1, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jun 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B$1.20
- Step 1 (32K)$39.68
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B or Step 1 (32K)?
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B is the better all-round choice, scoring 49/100 against Step 1 (32K) (18). It leads on price. Step 1 (32K) wins on inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B or Step 1 (32K)?
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.10 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Step 1 (32K) costs $2.05 input / $9.59 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.10 per million tokens for Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B versus $3.94 for Step 1 (32K) (39× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B has an ECI of 88.2 and Step 1 (32K) has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B and Step 1 (32K) yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B and Step 1 (32K) share the same 32,768-token context window. Maximum output per response: Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B up to 8,192, Step 1 (32K) up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B accepts text; Step 1 (32K) accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B publishes its weights (Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Step 1 (32K) is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Step 1 (32K) is the newest, released Jan 1, 2025. Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B came out Nov 12, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Step 1 (32K) Jun 2024.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
