# Claude 2.1 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B

> Qwen3-30B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-2-1-vs-qwen3-30b-a3b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 5

## Summary

- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3-30B-A3B in 4 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3-30B-A3B leads 37.4 to 10.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 70.3% for Qwen3-30B-A3B.
- Qwen3-30B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 38.9 |
| Rank | 345 | 179 |
| Context | — | 41K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.12 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.50 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327)
- Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.5 (#194)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | 29.8% |
| SciCode | — | 33.3% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1416 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.8 (#82)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41.4% |

## Reasoning

- Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221)
- Qwen3-30B-A3B: 22.2 (#204)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51% | 69.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | 139.63 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1398 |
| LMCA | — | 22.4% |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |

## Math

- Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315)
- Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.4 (#157)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 70.3% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 47.8% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1394 |

## Knowledge

- Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292)
- Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.8 (#105)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 70.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 12.3% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1396 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.5 (#132)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1372 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1433 |
| LMArena French | — | 1418 |
| LMArena German | — | 1380 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1331 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1370 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1404 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.0 (#142)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1363 |

## Long Context

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#283)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 40.6% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1379 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.6 (#143)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1384 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1317 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 75.3% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1378 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude 2.1 better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?

Qwen3-30B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude 2.1 or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?

Qwen3-30B-A3B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.5 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.