Model comparison
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Qwen3.5-35B-A3B #30; Step 3.7 Flash unranked
BenchAlign evidence: Qwen3.5-35B-A3B supported; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B and Step 3.7 Flash share 17 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Qwen3.5-35B-A3B; 13 to Step 3.7 Flash.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- Qwen3.5-35B-A3B only
- 12
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 13
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Step 3.7 Flash has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 57 versus 54. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Step 3.7 Flash's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 66.4 against 51. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 40.5% to 59.5%. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 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 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Δ | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B51.0 | Margin→ 15.4 | Step 3.7 Flash66.4 |
| Coding | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B60.6 | Margin← 4.3 | Step 3.7 Flash56.3 |
| Reasoning | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B59.0 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
| Knowledge | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B81.7 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
| Multilingual | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B81.0 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B91.9 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 40.5%B 59.5%Winner: Step 3.7 FlashΔ 19Terminal-Bench 2.0: Qwen3.5-35B-A3B scored 40.5%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 59.5%. Step 3.7 Flash wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 61%B 75.8%Winner: Step 3.7 FlashΔ 14.8BrowseComp: Qwen3.5-35B-A3B scored 61%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 75.8%. Step 3.7 Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Step 3.7 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B$0 input / $0 output | Step 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 output | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Qwen3.5-35B-A3BNot available | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Qwen3.5-35B-A3BNot available | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B262K | Step 3.7 Flash256K | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticStep 3.7 Flash wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 40.5% | 59.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 61% | 75.8% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 54.5% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 89.2% | 98.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 28.96% | 51.57% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 47.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.5% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1017 | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.5-35B-A3B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 69.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 53.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 26.5% | 35.6% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 37.7% | 40.0% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 56.3% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 39.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 85.3% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 63.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 84.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 29.3% | 30.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.5% | 80.9% | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 19.7% | 19.9% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -46.4% | -37.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 20.5% | 25.4% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 84.0% | 84.4% | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B leads |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | 81% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | 81.4% | — | Not comparable |
| MMVUSource | 72.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | 83.9% | — | Not comparable |
| V*Source | 92.7% | 95.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 72.7% | 75.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 79.2% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1218 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Qwen3.5-35B-A3B or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 57 to 54. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 40.5% and 59.5%.
Which is better for coding, Qwen3.5-35B-A3B or Step 3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 60.6 versus 56.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Qwen3.5-35B-A3B or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.4 versus 51. Inside this category, Gert Labs is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.