Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3.8 27B vs Step 5 Preview

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 43.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #64 Confirmed

Step 5 Preview StepFun

43.8

Rank #78 Reported

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.8 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Step 5 Preview in 2 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Step 5 Preview leads 38.0 to 31.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 5.4% for Qwen3.8 27B and 20.9% for Step 5 Preview.
  • Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.99 / $1.49 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $2.70 for Step 5 Preview.
  • Step 5 Preview accepts more context: 1.02M tokens versus 262K.
  • Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen3.8 27BStep 5 Preview
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)StepFun
Noometry Index45.343.8
Released2026-08-142026-09-16
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window262K1.02M
Max output33K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.99$1
Output $ / M tokens$1.49$2.70
Results tracked283

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42), Step 5 Preview: 50.6 (#40)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 5 Preview
LMArena WebDev15921569
SciCode46.6%58.9%
LMArena Coding1487—

Reasoning Step 5 Preview leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71), Step 5 Preview: 38.0 (#58)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 5 Preview
CritPt5.4%20.9%
NYT Connections (extended)54.5%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1459—
DTBench88%—
LMCA41.4%—
Surface Evolver Bench45%—
Epoch Capabilities Index149.38—

Math Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139), Step 5 Preview: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 5 Preview
ProofBench16%—
LMArena Math1453—

Knowledge Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105), Step 5 Preview: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 5 Preview
LMArena Expert1482—

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36), Step 5 Preview: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 5 Preview
LMArena Vision1270—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54), Step 5 Preview: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 5 Preview
LMArena Non-English1431—
LMArena Chinese1504—
LMArena French1468—
LMArena German1435—
LMArena Japanese1392—
LMArena Korean1389—
LMArena Russian1421—
LMArena Spanish1444—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54), Step 5 Preview: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 5 Preview
LMArena Instruction Following1436—

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66), Step 5 Preview: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 5 Preview
LMArena Longer Query1448—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41), Step 5 Preview: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BStep 5 Preview
LMArena Text1441—
LMArena Creative Writing1382—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1671—
LMArena Multi-Turn1443—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3.8 27B better than Step 5 Preview?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 43.8 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 27B or Step 5 Preview?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.99 per million input tokens and $1.49 per million output tokens; Step 5 Preview lists at $1 and $2.70.

Is Qwen3.8 27B or Step 5 Preview better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (50.3 vs 50.6); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

Step 5 Preview does, with 1.02M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3.8 27B and Step 5 Preview share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.8 27B has 28 scored results on Noometry and Step 5 Preview has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper