Side-by-side comparison
Step 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct
Qwen
Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.0700
Output / 1M
$0.2700
| Step 3.5 Flash | Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | StepFun | Qwen |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 262,144 | 160,000 |
| 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 → | 0.1000 | 0.0700 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.3000 | 0.2700 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Step 3.5 Flash or Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct?
Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct is cheaper than Step 3.5 Flash on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.03 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, Step 3.5 Flash or Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct?
Step 3.5 Flash has the larger context window at 262k tokens versus 160k tokens for Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct. That means Step 3.5 Flash can ingest about 1.6x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Step 3.5 Flash and Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct?
Step 3.5 Flash comes from StepFun; Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct comes from Qwen. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.