Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 47× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic

60.7

Rank #13 Confirmed

Qwen3-30B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

38.9

Rank #179 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8 leads 64.7 to 22.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 82.9% for Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8.
  • Claude Opus 4.8 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 41K.
  • Qwen3-30B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.8Qwen3-30B-A3B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index60.738.9
Released2026-05-282025-04-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M41K
Max output128K16K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.12
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.50
Results tracked6532

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.5 (#194)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-30B-A3B
SciCode53.5%33.3%
WeirdML82.9%29.8%
LMArena Coding14901416
DeepSWE59%—
FrontierCode46.5%—
LMArena WebDev1556—
GSO47.1%—
ALE-Bench1,564—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.8 (#82)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-30B-A3B
APEX-Agents48.9%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41.4%
OSWorld 2.020.6%—
Remote Labor Index8.3%—
τ²-bench Banking39.7%—
DeepResearch Bench50.2%—
PostTrainBench33.8%—
GBAEval70.9%—
GDP.pdf24%—
LMArena Search1204—
Vending-Bench 25,787—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 22.2 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-30B-A3B
Kagi LLM Benchmark88.8%54.9%
CritPt20.9%0.3%
Chess Puzzles34%8%
LMArena Hard Prompts14821398
DTBench94.9%69.3%
LMCA57.5%22.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index158.21139.63
ARC-AGI-272.1%—
SimpleBench64.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)91.1%—
ARC-AGI-192.5%—
EnigmaEval23.5%—
EBR-Bench28.6%—
Mystery Game Puzzles36%—
Surface Evolver Bench87.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.14—
ForecastBench59.9—

Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.4 (#157)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-30B-A3B
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions91.8%47.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.3%70.3%
LMArena Math14871394
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)80%—
FrontierMath Tier 456.1%—
ProofBench69%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)47.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)31.3%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.8 (#105)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-30B-A3B
GPQA Diamond91%70.1%
LMArena Expert15021396
SimpleQA Verified53%—
Confabulations—12.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Qwen3-30B-A3B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Vision1294—
Blueprint-Bench 214.5%—
Furniture Assembly42.5%—
LMArena Document1475—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.5 (#132)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Non-English14501372
LMArena Chinese15071433
LMArena French14811418
LMArena German14721380
LMArena Japanese14401337
LMArena Korean14321331
LMArena Russian14741370
LMArena Spanish14661404

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.0 (#142)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following14761363

Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#283)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Longer Query14831379
Fiction.LiveBench—40.6%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.6 (#143)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Text14611384
LMArena Creative Writing14541317
LMArena Multi-Turn14761378
Short-Story Creative Writing—75.3%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840—
EQ-Bench 41281—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 47× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 37.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.8 does, with 1M tokens against 41K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?

28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper