Skip to content
ModelCap

Head-to-head comparison

Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash

Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct (Qwen) and Step 3.7 Flash (StepFun) compared on the ModelCap Index, API price, context window, provider availability, weight access and every public benchmark board they share. Figures are the same ones shown on the live rankings; nothing here is a hidden score.

Snapshot as of 10 September 2026

As of 10 September 2026, Step 3.7 Flash holds the stronger ModelCap Index position (#86 vs #87); and Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct is 4.1× cheaper per output token ($0.28/1M vs $1.15/1M).

Which should you choose?

Choose Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct if…

  • API cost matters — $0.28/1M output tokens against $1.15/1M, about 4.1× cheaper.
  • your workload is prompt-heavy — input tokens cost $0.07/1M against $0.20/1M.
  • you want provider choice — 4 listed API providers against 3.

Choose Step 3.7 Flash if…

  • you want the stronger overall ModelCap Index position — #86 against #87 (48.5 vs 48.1 points).
  • AA τ²-Bench Telecom is your yardstick — 98.5% against 34.5%.
  • AA Humanity's Last Exam is your yardstick — 21.4% against 3.8%.
  • you want the more recently listed model — Step 3.7 Flash was listed 28 May 2026, Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct 31 July 2025.

Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash: specs, pricing and context

Specification comparison of Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct and Step 3.7 Flash
FieldQwen3 Coder 30B A3B InstructQwenStep 3.7 FlashStepFun
ModelCap Index position#87#86
Index score48.148.5
EvidenceEstimatedEstimated
Input price / 1M tokens$0.07$0.20
Output price / 1M tokens$0.28$1.15
Context window262K tokens262K tokens
Max output tokens236K230K
API providers listed43
Weight accessOpen weightsOpen weights
Input modalitiesTextText, Image, Video
First listed31 July 202528 May 2026
PublisherQwenStepFun

Evidence: publisher-corpus-prior over 184 held-out anchors (6%); launch card against 3 resolved peers on 4 rows (94%); no cross-lab optimism probe available; shrunk 0.1 up toward the measured corpus · 3 reported rows against measured corpus ladders (14%); global-corpus-prior over 184 held-out anchors (18%); measured predecessor stepfun/step-3.5-flash less the succession penalty (67%); shrunk 1.2 up toward the measured corpus. Prices are the lowest listed API offer per million tokens observed on the OpenRouter catalogue.

Benchmark scores: Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash

Public benchmark boards where Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct or Step 3.7 Flash has a published result
BoardQwen3 Coder 30B A3B InstructStep 3.7 FlashLeads
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Artificial Analysis—39.3%terminal-bench:2.1:terminus-2:e2b:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Step 3.7 Flash":reasoning=trueOnly one result
AA τ²-Bench TelecomArtificial Analysis34.5%tau2:telecom:dual-control:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B":reasoning=false98.5%tau2:telecom:dual-control:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Step 3.7 Flash":reasoning=trueStep 3.7 Flash
AA Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis3.8%hle:may-2025:text-only-2158:no-tools:pass-at-1:source-model="Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B":reasoning=false21.4%hle:may-2025:text-only-2158:no-tools:pass-at-1:source-model="Step 3.7 Flash":reasoning=trueStep 3.7 Flash

Scores are the sources' own published figures for each model's best evaluated configuration; ModelCap never re-runs a benchmark.

Want a different pairing? Open the interactive comparison tool to swap either model for any current ranked language model.

Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash: common questions

Is Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct better than Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 10 September 2026: #86 against #87. That is a capability ranking built from public benchmark evidence with published uncertainty; whether it is "better" for you also depends on price, context and where you can run it. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.

Is Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct cheaper than Step 3.7 Flash?

Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct is cheaper on output tokens: $0.28/1M against $1.15/1M. Input tokens are $0.07/1M for Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct and $0.20/1M for Step 3.7 Flash. Prices are the lowest listed API offer ModelCap observed, in USD per million tokens. For 1,000 requests with 2,000 input and 500 output tokens each (2M input + 0.5M output), the listed-rate estimate is $0.28 for Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct versus $0.97 for Step 3.7 Flash. Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct costs 71.3% less in this scenario. This excludes caching, batch discounts, prompt-length tiers, tool charges and retries; verify the selected endpoint before budgeting.

Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct or Step 3.7 Flash?

Both publish a 262K-token context window.

Which is better for coding, Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct or Step 3.7 Flash?

The two models do not share a coding benchmark board on ModelCap yet, so no head-to-head coding score is published; the ModelCap Index position is the closest overall signal.

Are Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct and Step 3.7 Flash open-weight models?

Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct: Open weights. Step 3.7 Flash: Open weights. Open weights mean the checkpoint can be downloaded and self-hosted under its licence; API-only models are available solely through hosted endpoints.

Where can I run Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct and Step 3.7 Flash?

ModelCap currently lists 4 API providers for Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct and 3 for Step 3.7 Flash, from the OpenRouter catalogue snapshot the site serves; each model page lists the providers and their prices.

How current is this Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash comparison?

Every figure comes from the sealed ModelCap dataset published 10 September 2026; the page re-renders within a minute of each data refresh, and the ModelCap Index positions are the same ones shown on the live rankings.

Explore further