ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.8 Flash Next vs Step 3.7 Flash

Qwen3.8 Flash Next comes out ahead, 70 to 62 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.8 Flash Next

    Released Aug 27, 2026

    70/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.20 / $0.50
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.8 Flash Next

  2. StepFun

    Step 3.7 Flash

    Released May 29, 2026

    62/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.185 / $1.11
    • Context256K
    Full specs Remove Step 3.7 Flash

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Qwen3.8 Flash Next is our pick

Qwen3.8 Flash Next is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Step 3.7 Flash (62). It leads on price and 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 priceQwen3.8 Flash NextQwen3.8 Flash Next $0.275 · Step 3.7 Flash $0.416 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3.8 Flash NextQwen3.8 Flash Next 262,144 · Step 3.7 Flash 256,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsQwen3.8 Flash Next: Text, Images, Video · Step 3.7 Flash: Text, Images, Video
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.8 Flash NextStep 3.7 Flash
Price50%7668
Inputs & features30%8070
Context window20%3736
Overall100%70/10062/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Qwen3.8 Flash Next vs Step 3.7 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen)Step 3.7 FlashStepFun
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.20$0.185 (best)
Output$0.50 (best)$1.11
Cached input—$0.037
Blended (3:1)$0.275 (best)$0.416
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 5 providersOfficial StepFun (Global) API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens (best)256,000 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens256,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoYesYes
ReasoningYesYeslow · medium · high
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesNo
Availability
WeightsOpenqwen-community-1.0Open
API model ID—step-3.7-flash
API providers518 (best)
ReleasedAug 27, 2026May 29, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—Mar 1, 2026
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Qwen3.8 Flash Next$3.00
  • Step 3.7 Flash$4.07
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.8 Flash Next or Step 3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash Next is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Step 3.7 Flash (62). It leads on price and 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, Qwen3.8 Flash Next or Step 3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash Next is cheaper at $0.20 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers). Step 3.7 Flash costs $0.185 input / $1.11 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.275 per million tokens for Qwen3.8 Flash Next versus $0.416 for Step 3.7 Flash (1.5× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen3.8 Flash Next has not been scored yet and Step 3.7 Flash has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.8 Flash Next and Step 3.7 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.8 Flash Next has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 256,000 for Step 3.7 Flash. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.8 Flash Next up to 131,072, Step 3.7 Flash up to 256,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.8 Flash Next accepts text, images and video; Step 3.7 Flash accepts text, images and video. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, both publish their weights (qwen-community-1.0), so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

Qwen3.8 Flash Next is the newest, released Aug 27, 2026. Step 3.7 Flash came out May 29, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Step 3.7 Flash Mar 1, 2026.

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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons