Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B
Qwen3-30B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.5 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3-30B-A3B in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3-30B-A3B leads 36.0 to 9.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 70.3% for Qwen3-30B-A3B.
- Qwen3-30B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 38.5 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2025-04-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 41K |
| Max output | — | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.12 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.50 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Claude 2.1: 25.8 (#322), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.0 (#188)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | 29.8% |
| SciCode | — | 33.3% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1416 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.5 (#75)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41.4% |
Reasoning Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Claude 2.1: 20.6 (#216), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 21.6 (#193)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51% | 69.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.22 | 139.63 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1398 |
| LMCA | — | 22.4% |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Claude 2.1: 9.6 (#309), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 36.0 (#133)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 70.3% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 47.8% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1394 |
Knowledge Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Claude 2.1: 15.5 (#287), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.7 (#96)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 70.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 12.3% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1395 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.8 (#126)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1372 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1434 |
| LMArena French | — | 1419 |
| LMArena German | — | 1379 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1338 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1333 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1369 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1403 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.2 (#137)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1364 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#278)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 40.6% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1379 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.9 (#138)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1384 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1318 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 75.3% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1378 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?
Qwen3-30B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.5 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?
Qwen3-30B-A3B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.0 versus 25.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?
5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.