Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
66
Step 3.7 Flash
72
Verified leaderboard positions: Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #24 · Step 3.7 Flash unranked
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 262K context window.
Agentic
+14.4 difference
Coding
+10.6 difference
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Step 3.7 Flash
N/A
$0.2 / $1.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
262K
256K
Pick Step 3.7 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 262K context window.
Step 3.7 Flash is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 72 to 66. 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 51.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 51.5% to 59.5%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
Step 3.7 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 66. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 51.5% and 59.5%.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 66.9 versus 56.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.9 versus 51.5. Inside this category, Toolathlon is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.