Side-by-side comparison
Qwen3 32B vs Step 3.5 Flash
| Qwen3 32B | Step 3.5 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Qwen | StepFun |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 40,960 | 262,144 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | tools, json_mode | tools, json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.0800 | 0.1000 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.2800 | 0.3000 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 32B or Step 3.5 Flash?
Qwen3 32B is cheaper than Step 3.5 Flash on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.02 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, Qwen3 32B or Step 3.5 Flash?
Step 3.5 Flash has the larger context window at 262k tokens versus 41k tokens for Qwen3 32B. That means Step 3.5 Flash can ingest about 6.4x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Qwen3 32B and Step 3.5 Flash?
Qwen3 32B comes from Qwen; Step 3.5 Flash comes from StepFun. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.