Step 3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max Preview
Step 3.7 Flash comes out ahead, 62 to 47 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
StepFunStep 3.7 Flash
62/100- ECI—
- Price$0.185 / $1.11
- Context256K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 Max Preview
47/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Step 3.7 Flash is our pick
Step 3.7 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against Qwen3.8 Max Preview (47). It leads on price. Qwen3.8 Max Preview wins on 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 3.7 FlashStep 3.7 Flash $0.416 · Qwen3.8 Max Preview $3.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.8 Max PreviewQwen3.8 Max Preview 1,000,000 · Step 3.7 Flash 256,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsStep 3.7 Flash: Text, Images, Video · Qwen3.8 Max Preview: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingStep 3.7 FlashPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Step 3.7 Flash | Qwen3.8 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 68 | 27 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 62/100 | 47/100 |
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 3.7 FlashStepFun | Qwen3.8 Max PreviewAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.185 (best) | $2.00 |
| Output | $1.11 (best) | $6.00 |
| Cached input | $0.037 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.416 (best) | $3.00 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official StepFun (Global) API | Median of 6 providers |
| 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 | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | step-3.7-flash | — |
| API providers | 18 (best) | 6 |
| Released | May 29, 2026 | Jul 19, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Mar 1, 2026 | — |
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 Max Preview$32.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Step 3.7 Flash or Qwen3.8 Max Preview?
Step 3.7 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against Qwen3.8 Max Preview (47). It leads on price. Qwen3.8 Max Preview wins on 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 3.7 Flash or Qwen3.8 Max Preview?
Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.185 input / $1.11 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). Qwen3.8 Max Preview costs $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 6 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.416 per million tokens for Step 3.7 Flash versus $3.00 for Qwen3.8 Max Preview (7.2× 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 Max Preview 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 Max Preview 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 Max Preview has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 256,000 for Step 3.7 Flash. Maximum output per response: Step 3.7 Flash up to 256,000, Qwen3.8 Max Preview up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Step 3.7 Flash accepts text, images and video; Qwen3.8 Max Preview accepts text, images and video. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Step 3.7 Flash publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen3.8 Max Preview is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.8 Max Preview is the newest, released Jul 19, 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B ReasoningThree-way comparison
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B ReasoningNVIDIA
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Toast 1Mixedbread
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Mercury Edit 2Inception
- Qwen3.8 Max Preview vs Kimi K2.7 Code HighspeedMoonshot AI
- Qwen3.8 Max Preview vs ParetoUnbiased
