Qwen3 30B A3B vs Rnj-1 Instruct
Qwen3 30B A3B comes out ahead, 55 to 50 on our weighted score, though Rnj-1 Instruct is 25% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 30B A3B
55/100- ECI136.2
- Price$0.108 / $0.475
- Context131K
Essential AI
Rnj-1 Instruct
50/100- ECI—
- Price$0.15 / $0.15
- Context33K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3 30B A3B is our pick
Qwen3 30B A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 55/100 against Rnj-1 Instruct (50). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Rnj-1 Instruct wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceRnj-1 InstructRnj-1 Instruct $0.15 · Qwen3 30B A3B $0.20 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3 30B A3BQwen3 30B A3B 131,072 · Rnj-1 Instruct 32,768 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwen3 30B A3B: Text · Rnj-1 Instruct: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3 30B A3B | Rnj-1 Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 80 | 85 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 25 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 50/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3 30B A3BAlibaba (Qwen) | Rnj-1 InstructEssential AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 136.2 | — |
| ECI rank | #126 of 165 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 61.7% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 62.8% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.108 (best) | $0.15 |
| Output | $0.475 | $0.15 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.20 | $0.15 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 14 providers | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Max output | 16,384 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | OpenApache 2.0 |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 14 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Apr 28, 2025 | Dec 4, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen3 30B A3B$2.03
- Rnj-1 Instruct$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3 30B A3B or Rnj-1 Instruct?
Qwen3 30B A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 55/100 against Rnj-1 Instruct (50). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Rnj-1 Instruct wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 30B A3B or Rnj-1 Instruct?
Rnj-1 Instruct is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Qwen3 30B A3B costs $0.108 input / $0.475 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.15 per million tokens for Rnj-1 Instruct versus $0.20 for Qwen3 30B A3B (1.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen3 30B A3B has an ECI of 136.2 and Rnj-1 Instruct has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3 30B A3B and Rnj-1 Instruct yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3 30B A3B has the largest context window at 131,072 tokens, against 32,768 for Rnj-1 Instruct. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 30B A3B up to 16,384, Rnj-1 Instruct up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3 30B A3B accepts text; Rnj-1 Instruct accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (Apache 2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Rnj-1 Instruct is the newest, released Dec 4, 2025. Qwen3 30B A3B came out Apr 28, 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17Three-way comparison
- Qwen3 30B A3B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview 06-17Google · ECI 133.8
- Qwen3 30B A3B vs DeepSeek V3 0324DeepSeek · ECI 135.9
- Qwen3 30B A3B vs GPT OSS 20BOpenAI · ECI 137.8
- Qwen3 30B A3B vs Llama 4 Maverick 17B InstructMeta · ECI 132.3
- Rnj-1 Instruct vs Ministral 3 8BMistral AI
- Rnj-1 Instruct vs MiMo-V2-FlashXiaomi
