Falcon (TII) vs StepFun Step 3.5 Flash

Which one should you pick? Here's the full breakdown.

Falcon (TII)

B
7.1/10

UAE's Technology Innovation Institute open-weights family -- Falcon 3 optimized for efficient sub-10B deployment on consumer hardware

Our Pick

StepFun Step 3.5 Flash

B
7.8/10

StepFun's (China) agent-focused open-weight model -- Step 3.5 Flash launched 2026-02-01. 196B sparse MoE, ~11B active. Benchmarks slightly ahead of DeepSeek V3.2 at over 3x smaller total size. Step 3 (321B / 38B active, Apache 2.0) and Step3-VL-10B multimodal also in the family

CategoryFalcon (TII)StepFun Step 3.5 Flash
Ease of Use7.06.0
Output Quality6.58.0
Value9.09.0
Features6.08.0
Overall7.17.8

Pricing Comparison

FeatureFalcon (TII)StepFun Step 3.5 Flash
Free TierYesYes
Starting Price$0$0

Benchmark Head-to-Head

Falcon 3 10B benchmarks — StepFun Step 3.5 Flash has no published benchmarks

BenchmarkScore
MMLU73.1%
GPQA Diamond42.5%
HumanEval73.8%
MATH55.4%

Which Should You Pick?

Pick Falcon (TII) if...

  • Easier to use (7 vs 6)

Developers who need a genuinely Apache-2.0 small model for on-device or edge deployment, or who need strong Arabic/multilingual support.

Visit Falcon (TII)

Pick StepFun Step 3.5 Flash if...

  • Higher output quality (8 vs 6.5)
  • More features (8 vs 6)

Teams building agent systems on Chinese open-weight foundations who want something other than DeepSeek or Qwen, especially if agentic tool-use is the primary workload. Also good for Chinese-market products where StepFun's domestic tuning advantages matter. And for anyone looking to add diversity to their open-weight evaluation matrix beyond the top-3 Chinese labs.

Visit StepFun Step 3.5 Flash

Our Verdict

StepFun Step 3.5 Flash edges out Falcon (TII) with a 7.8 vs 7.1 overall score. Both are solid picks, but StepFun Step 3.5 Flash has the advantage in output quality.