Skip to main content

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Step 3.7 Flash

Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

64

VS

Step 3.7 Flash

72

1 categoriesvs1 categories

Verified leaderboard positions: Qwen3.5-122B-A10B #11 · Step 3.7 Flash unranked

Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Category Radar

Head-to-Head by Category

Category Breakdown

Agentic

Step 3.7 Flash
56.1vs65.9

+9.8 difference

Coding

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
72vs56.3

+15.7 difference

Operational Comparison

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Step 3.7 Flash

Price (per 1M tokens)

$0 / $0

$0.2 / $1.15

Speed

N/A

N/A

Latency (TTFT)

N/A

N/A

Context Window

262K

256K

Quick Verdict

Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Step 3.7 Flash is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 72 to 64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Step 3.7 Flash's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 65.9 against 56.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 63.8% to 75.8%. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Step 3.7 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5-122B-A10B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 63.8% and 75.8%.

Which is better for coding, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or Step 3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72 versus 56.3. Step 3.7 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.9 versus 56.1. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: June 1, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.