Step 3.5 Flash vs Qwen Flash vs GLM-4.7-FlashX
Qwen Flash comes out ahead, 68 to 62 and 61 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
StepFunStep 3.5 Flash
62/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.30
- Context256K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen Flash
68/100- ECI—
- Price$0.05 / $0.40
- Context1M
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.7-FlashX
61/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.40
- Context200K
Qwen Flash is our pick
Qwen Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against Step 3.5 Flash (62) and GLM-4.7-FlashX (61). It leads on price 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 priceQwen FlashQwen Flash $0.138 · Step 3.5 Flash $0.15 · GLM-4.7-FlashX $0.152 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen FlashQwen Flash 1,000,000 · Step 3.5 Flash 256,000 · GLM-4.7-FlashX 200,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsStep 3.5 Flash: Text · Qwen Flash: Text · GLM-4.7-FlashX: Text
- Self-hostingStep 3.5 Flash and GLM-4.7-FlashXPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Step 3.5 Flash | Qwen Flash | GLM-4.7-FlashX |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 89 | 91 | 89 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 60 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 62/100 | 68/100 | 61/100 |
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 FlashStepFun | Qwen FlashAlibaba (Qwen) | GLM-4.7-FlashXZ.ai (Zhipu) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.10 | $0.05 (best) | $0.07 |
| Output | $0.30 (best) | $0.40 | $0.40 |
| Cached input | $0.02 | — | $0.01 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.15 | $0.138 (best) | $0.152 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official StepFun (Global) API | Official Alibaba API | Official Z.AI API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 200,000 tokens |
| Max output | 256,000 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · high | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | step-3.5-flash | qwen-flash | glm-4.7-flashx |
| API providers | 8 (best) | 6 | 8 (best) |
| Released | Jan 29, 2026 | Jul 28, 2025 | Jan 19, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jan 2025 | Apr 2024 | Apr 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$1.60
- Qwen Flash$1.30
- GLM-4.7-FlashX$1.50
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Step 3.5 Flash, Qwen Flash or GLM-4.7-FlashX?
Qwen Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against Step 3.5 Flash (62) and GLM-4.7-FlashX (61). It leads on price 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, Step 3.5 Flash, Qwen Flash or GLM-4.7-FlashX?
Qwen Flash is cheaper at $0.05 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Step 3.5 Flash costs $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price); GLM-4.7-FlashX costs $0.07 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.138 per million tokens for Qwen Flash versus $0.15 for Step 3.5 Flash (1.1× as much) and $0.152 for GLM-4.7-FlashX (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Step 3.5 Flash has not been scored yet, Qwen Flash has not been scored yet and GLM-4.7-FlashX has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Step 3.5 Flash, Qwen Flash and GLM-4.7-FlashX yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 256,000 for Step 3.5 Flash and 200,000 for GLM-4.7-FlashX. Maximum output per response: Step 3.5 Flash up to 256,000, Qwen Flash up to 32,768, GLM-4.7-FlashX up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Step 3.5 Flash accepts text; Qwen Flash accepts text; GLM-4.7-FlashX accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Step 3.5 Flash and GLM-4.7-FlashX publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Step 3.5 Flash is the newest, released Jan 29, 2026. GLM-4.7-FlashX came out Jan 19, 2026; Qwen Flash came out Jul 28, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Step 3.5 Flash Jan 2025, Qwen Flash Apr 2024, GLM-4.7-FlashX Apr 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.
