Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct vs Step 3.5 Flash
Step 3.5 Flash comes out ahead, 62 to 39 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct
39/100- ECI—
- Price$0.50 / $2.00
- Context131K
- Our pick
StepFunStep 3.5 Flash
62/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.30
- Context256K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Step 3.5 Flash is our pick
Step 3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct (39). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. 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 priceStep 3.5 FlashStep 3.5 Flash $0.15 · Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct $0.875 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextStep 3.5 FlashStep 3.5 Flash 256,000 · Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: Text · Step 3.5 Flash: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 53 | 89 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 39/100 | 62/100 |
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 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B InstructAlibaba (Qwen) | Step 3.5 FlashStepFun |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.50 | $0.10 (best) |
| Output | $2.00 | $0.30 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.02 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.875 | $0.15 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Official StepFun (Global) API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yeslow · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | qwen3-next-80b-a3b-instruct | step-3.5-flash |
| API providers | 13 (best) | 8 |
| Released | Sep 2025 | Jan 29, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2025 | Jan 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct$9.00
- Step 3.5 Flash$1.60
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct or Step 3.5 Flash?
Step 3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct (39). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. 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-Next 80B-A3B Instruct or Step 3.5 Flash?
Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct costs $0.50 input / $2.00 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.15 per million tokens for Step 3.5 Flash versus $0.875 for Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct (5.8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct has not been scored yet and Step 3.5 Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct and Step 3.5 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?
Step 3.5 Flash has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct. Maximum output per response: Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct up to 32,768, Step 3.5 Flash up to 256,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct accepts text; Step 3.5 Flash accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Step 3.5 Flash is the newest, released Jan 29, 2026. Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct came out Sep 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct Apr 2025, Step 3.5 Flash Jan 2025.
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.
Related comparisons
- Add GLM-4.5VThree-way comparison
- Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct vs GLM-4.5VZ.ai (Zhipu)
- Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct vs Mistral Medium 3.1Mistral AI
- Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct vs Ling-1TinclusionAI
- Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct vs Apertus 70BSwiss AI
- Step 3.5 Flash vs GLM-4.7-FlashXZ.ai (Zhipu)
- Step 3.5 Flash vs Devstral Small 2Mistral AI
