ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Step 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Flash Next

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

  1. 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
  2. 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

  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 inputsStep 3.7 Flash: Text, Images, Video · Qwen3.8 Flash Next: Text, Images, Video
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightStep 3.7 FlashQwen3.8 Flash Next
Price50%6876
Inputs & features30%7080
Context window20%3637
Overall100%62/10070/100

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.

Step 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Flash Next specifications side by side
SpecificationStep 3.7 FlashStepFunQwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.185 (best)$0.20
Output$1.11$0.50 (best)
Cached input$0.037—
Blended (3:1)$0.416$0.275 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial StepFun (Global) APIMedian of 5 providers
Limits
Context window256,000 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Max output256,000 tokens (best)131,072 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoYesYes
ReasoningYeslow · medium · highYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoYes
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenqwen-community-1.0
API model IDstep-3.7-flash—
API providers18 (best)5
ReleasedMay 29, 2026Aug 27, 2026
Knowledge cutoffMar 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.

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

Which should you choose?

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

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, Step 3.7 Flash or Qwen3.8 Flash Next?

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. Step 3.7 Flash has not been scored yet and Qwen3.8 Flash Next has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Step 3.7 Flash and Qwen3.8 Flash Next 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: Step 3.7 Flash up to 256,000, Qwen3.8 Flash Next up to 131,072 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Step 3.7 Flash accepts text, images and video; Qwen3.8 Flash Next 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