Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 47× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

Qwen3-30B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

38.9

Rank #179 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3-30B-A3B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 22.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 78% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 29.8% for Qwen3-30B-A3B.
  • Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 41K.
  • Qwen3-30B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Qwen3-30B-A3B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.238.9
Released2026-02-042025-04-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M41K
Max output128K16K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.12
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.50
Results tracked6832

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.5 (#194)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3-30B-A3B
WeirdML78%29.8%
LMArena Coding15361416
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
LMArena WebDev1547—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—33.3%
GSO41.2%—
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.8 (#82)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3-30B-A3B
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41.4%
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 22.2 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3-30B-A3B
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%54.9%
Chess Puzzles17%8%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271398
DTBench91.2%69.3%
LMCA55.8%22.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24139.63
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
CritPt—0.3%
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
ForecastBench60—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.4 (#157)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3-30B-A3B
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%47.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%70.3%
LMArena Math15191394
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
ProofBench50%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.8 (#105)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3-30B-A3B
GPQA Diamond90.5%70.1%
LMArena Expert15461396
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
Confabulations—12.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Qwen3-30B-A3B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.5 (#132)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Non-English14891372
LMArena Chinese15511433
LMArena French15131418
LMArena German15021380
LMArena Japanese14841337
LMArena Korean14641331
LMArena Russian14971370
LMArena Spanish15101404

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.0 (#142)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following15231363

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#283)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Longer Query15201379
Fiction.LiveBench—40.6%
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.6 (#143)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Text15031384
LMArena Creative Writing15051317
LMArena Multi-Turn15131378
Short-Story Creative Writing—75.3%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 47× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 37.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 41K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?

26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper