Model comparison
GPT-5.3 Chat vs Qwen3-30B-A3B
GPT-5.3 Chat is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.8 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 22× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.3 Chat's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.3 Chat scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3-30B-A3B in 1 category; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where GPT-5.3 Chat leads 42.6 to 31.0.
- Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $1.75 / $14 for GPT-5.3 Chat.
- GPT-5.3 Chat accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 41K.
- Qwen3-30B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3-30B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.8 | 38.9 |
| Released | 2026-03-03 | 2025-04-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 41K |
| Max output | 16K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.75 | $0.12 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $14 | $0.50 |
| Results tracked | 18 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.3 Chat leads
GPT-5.3 Chat: 41.4 (#124), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.5 (#194)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1408 | 1416 |
| SciCode | — | 33.3% |
| WeirdML | — | 29.8% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.3 Chat: —, Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.8 (#82)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41.4% |
Reasoning GPT-5.3 Chat leads
GPT-5.3 Chat: 28.5 (#102), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 22.2 (#204)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1398 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 8% |
| DTBench | — | 69.3% |
| LMCA | — | 22.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 139.63 |
Math Too close to call
GPT-5.3 Chat: 38.2 (#142), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.4 (#157)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1389 | 1394 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 47.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 70.3% |
Knowledge Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
GPT-5.3 Chat: 38.8 (#140), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.8 (#105)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1397 | 1396 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 70.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 12.3% |
Multilingual Too close to call
GPT-5.3 Chat: 50.3 (#124), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.5 (#132)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1382 | 1372 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1432 | 1433 |
| LMArena French | 1397 | 1418 |
| LMArena German | 1384 | 1380 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1352 | 1337 |
| LMArena Korean | 1346 | 1331 |
| LMArena Russian | 1400 | 1370 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1371 | 1404 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
GPT-5.3 Chat: 72.8 (#129), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.0 (#142)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1378 | 1363 |
Long Context GPT-5.3 Chat leads
GPT-5.3 Chat: 42.6 (#120), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#283)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1396 | 1379 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 40.6% |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.3 Chat leads
GPT-5.3 Chat: 63.1 (#68), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.6 (#143)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1389 | 1384 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1355 | 1317 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1412 | 1378 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 75.3% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1690 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.3 Chat better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?
GPT-5.3 Chat is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.8 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 22× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.3 Chat's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.3 Chat 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; GPT-5.3 Chat lists at $1.75 and $14.
Is GPT-5.3 Chat or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?
GPT-5.3 Chat scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.4 versus 37.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.3 Chat does, with 128K tokens against 41K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.3 Chat and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.3 Chat has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.