QwQ 32B vs Qwen3 30B A3B
Qwen3 30B A3B comes out ahead, 57 to 53 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)QwQ 32B
53/100- ECI137.5
- Price$0.53 / $0.70
- Context131K
- Our pickAlibaba (Qwen)
Qwen3 30B A3B
57/100- ECI136.2
- Price$0.108 / $0.475
- Context131K
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 57/100 against QwQ 32B (53). It leads on price. QwQ 32B wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityQwQ 32BCapabilities Index (ECI): QwQ 32B 137.5 · Qwen3 30B A3B 136.2
- Lowest priceQwen3 30B A3BQwen3 30B A3B $0.20 · QwQ 32B $0.573 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameQwQ 32B 131,072 · Qwen3 30B A3B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwQ 32B: Text · Qwen3 30B A3B: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | QwQ 32B | Qwen3 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 61 | 59 |
| Price | 25% | 59 | 80 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 10% | 25 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 53/100 | 57/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen) | Qwen3 30B A3BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 137.5 (best) | 136.2 |
| ECI rank | #123 of 165 (best) | #126 of 165 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 65.3% (best) | 61.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 59.2% | 62.8% (best) |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.53 | $0.108 (best) |
| Output | $0.70 | $0.475 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.573 | $0.20 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | Median of 14 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 16,384 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 2 | 14 (best) |
| Released | Mar 5, 2025 | Apr 28, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- QwQ 32B$6.70
- Qwen3 30B A3B$2.03
Which should you choose?
Which is better: QwQ 32B or Qwen3 30B A3B?
Qwen3 30B A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against QwQ 32B (53). It leads on price. QwQ 32B wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, QwQ 32B or Qwen3 30B A3B?
Qwen3 30B A3B is cheaper at $0.108 input / $0.475 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). QwQ 32B costs $0.53 input / $0.70 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.20 per million tokens for Qwen3 30B A3B versus $0.573 for QwQ 32B (2.9× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
QwQ 32B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): QwQ 32B 137.5 (#123 of 165) and Qwen3 30B A3B 136.2 (#126 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (133.1–141.3 vs 130.8–138.5), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — QwQ 32B 65.3%, Qwen3 30B A3B 61.7%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3 30B A3B 62.8%, QwQ 32B 59.2%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for QwQ 32B and Qwen3 30B A3B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, QwQ 32B leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
QwQ 32B and Qwen3 30B A3B share the same 131,072-token context window. Maximum output per response: QwQ 32B up to 8,192, Qwen3 30B A3B up to 16,384 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
QwQ 32B accepts text; Qwen3 30B A3B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Qwen3 30B A3B is the newest, released Apr 28, 2025. QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: QwQ 32B Apr 2024.
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 DeepSeek V3 0324Three-way comparison
- QwQ 32B vs DeepSeek V3 0324DeepSeek · ECI 135.9
- QwQ 32B vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 134.9
- QwQ 32B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview 05-20Google · ECI 141.5
- QwQ 32B vs Kimi K2 InstructMoonshot AI · ECI 139.9
- 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
