Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B

Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 140× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic

41.0

Rank #142 Confirmed

Qwen3-30B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

38.9

Rank #179 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3-30B-A3B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3-30B-A3B leads 37.4 to 22.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 45.9% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 29.8% for Qwen3-30B-A3B.
  • Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
  • Claude Opus 4.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 41K.
  • Qwen3-30B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.1Qwen3-30B-A3B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.038.9
Released2025-08-052025-04-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K41K
Max output32K16K
Input $ / M tokens$15$0.12
Output $ / M tokens$75$0.50
Results tracked4832

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.5 (#194)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3-30B-A3B
WeirdML45.9%29.8%
LMArena Coding14791416
SWE-bench Verified73.3%—
LMArena WebDev1390—
SciCode—33.3%
ALE-Bench674.77—
AlgoTune1.34—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.8 (#82)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3-30B-A3B
Terminal-Bench38%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41.4%
GDPval43.6%—
Cybench42%—
DeepResearch Bench48.3%—
LMArena Search1148—
METR Time Horizons66.8%—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 22.2 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3-30B-A3B
Chess Puzzles7%8%
LMArena Hard Prompts14431398
DTBench80%69.3%
LMCA37.1%22.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index144.12139.63
SimpleBench60%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
CritPt—0.3%
EnigmaEval7.2%—
EBR-Bench7.9%—
Mystery Game Puzzles21%—
ForecastBench62—

Math Qwen3-30B-A3B leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.4 (#157)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3-30B-A3B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202568.9%70.3%
LMArena Math14311394
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)12.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 42.4%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—47.8%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)7.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.8 (#105)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3-30B-A3B
GPQA Diamond77.3%70.1%
Confabulations17.1%12.3%
LMArena Expert14391396
Humanity's Last Exam11.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.8%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), Qwen3-30B-A3B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3-30B-A3B
VPCT35%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.5 (#132)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Non-English14051372
LMArena Chinese14271433
LMArena French14311418
LMArena German14131380
LMArena Japanese13781337
LMArena Korean13801331
LMArena Russian14221370
LMArena Spanish14481404

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.0 (#142)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following14351363

Long Context Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#283)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Longer Query14551379
Fiction.LiveBench—40.6%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.6 (#143)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Text14191384
LMArena Creative Writing14121317
Short-Story Creative Writing84.7%75.3%
LMArena Multi-Turn14441378

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?

Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 140× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3-30B-A3B?

Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.

Is Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.4 versus 37.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.1 does, with 200K tokens against 41K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?

26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper