Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 47× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Qwen3-30B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

38.9

Rank #179 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7 leads 53.8 to 22.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 76.4% for Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 41K.
  • Qwen3-30B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Qwen3-30B-A3B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.338.9
Released2026-04-142025-04-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M41K
Max output128K16K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.12
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.50
Results tracked6632

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.5 (#194)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-30B-A3B
SciCode54.5%33.3%
WeirdML76.4%29.8%
LMArena Coding15181416
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
LMArena WebDev1558—
GSO44.1%—
MirrorCode31.1%—
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.8 (#82)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-30B-A3B
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41.4%
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 22.2 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-30B-A3B
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%54.9%
CritPt12%0.3%
Chess Puzzles30%8%
LMArena Hard Prompts15061398
DTBench94.7%69.3%
LMCA52.2%22.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25139.63
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
SimpleBench61.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.4 (#157)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-30B-A3B
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%47.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%70.3%
LMArena Math14991394
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
ProofBench54%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.8 (#105)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-30B-A3B
GPQA Diamond90.2%70.1%
LMArena Expert15211396
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
Confabulations—12.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Qwen3-30B-A3B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Vision1316—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.5 (#132)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Non-English14801372
LMArena Chinese15311433
LMArena French15031418
LMArena German14951380
LMArena Japanese14721337
LMArena Korean14641331
LMArena Russian14941370
LMArena Spanish14951404

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.0 (#142)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following14981363

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#283)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Longer Query15051379
Fiction.LiveBench—40.6%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.6 (#143)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Text14901384
LMArena Creative Writing14861317
LMArena Multi-Turn15051378
Short-Story Creative Writing—75.3%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 47× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 37.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 41K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?

28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper