Step 3.5 Flash 2603 vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Qwen3.8 Flash comes out ahead, 76 to 62 on our weighted score, though Step 3.5 Flash 2603 is 35% cheaper per token.
StepFunStep 3.5 Flash 2603
62/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.30
- Context256K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 Flash
76/100- ECI—
- Price$0.15 / $0.47
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3.8 Flash is our pick
Qwen3.8 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against Step 3.5 Flash 2603 (62). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Step 3.5 Flash 2603 wins on price. 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 Flash 2603Step 3.5 Flash 2603 $0.15 · Qwen3.8 Flash $0.23 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.8 FlashQwen3.8 Flash 1,000,000 · Step 3.5 Flash 2603 256,000 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.8 FlashStep 3.5 Flash 2603: Text · Qwen3.8 Flash: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingStep 3.5 Flash 2603Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Step 3.5 Flash 2603 | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 89 | 80 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 62/100 | 76/100 |
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 | Step 3.5 Flash 2603StepFun | Qwen3.8 FlashAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 (best) | $0.15 |
| Output | $0.30 (best) | $0.47 |
| Cached input | $0.02 | $0.016 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.15 (best) | $0.23 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official StepFun (Global) API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 256,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · high | Yeslow · medium · xhigh |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | step-3.5-flash-2603 | qwen3.8-flash |
| API providers | 3 | 23 (best) |
| Released | Apr 2, 2026 | Aug 26, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 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.
- Step 3.5 Flash 2603$1.60
- Qwen3.8 Flash$2.44
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Step 3.5 Flash 2603 or Qwen3.8 Flash?
Qwen3.8 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against Step 3.5 Flash 2603 (62). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Step 3.5 Flash 2603 wins on price. 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, Step 3.5 Flash 2603 or Qwen3.8 Flash?
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). Qwen3.8 Flash costs $0.15 input / $0.47 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 2603 versus $0.23 for Qwen3.8 Flash (1.5× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Step 3.5 Flash 2603 has not been scored yet and Qwen3.8 Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Step 3.5 Flash 2603 and Qwen3.8 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 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 256,000 for Step 3.5 Flash 2603. Maximum output per response: Step 3.5 Flash 2603 up to 256,000, Qwen3.8 Flash up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 accepts text; Qwen3.8 Flash accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.8 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen3.8 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.8 Flash is the newest, released Aug 26, 2026. Step 3.5 Flash 2603 came out Apr 2, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Step 3.5 Flash 2603 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.
