Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 37× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic

68.6

Rank #3 Confirmed

Qwen3-30B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

38.9

Rank #179 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 leads 80.2 to 22.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 68.2% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 22.4% for Qwen3-30B-A3B.
  • Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 41K.
  • Qwen3-30B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 5.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index68.638.9
Released2026-09-222025-04-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M41K
Max output128K16K
Input $ / M tokens$4$0.12
Output $ / M tokens$20$0.50
Results tracked4432

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 71.9 (#3), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.5 (#194)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
SciCode66.9%33.3%
LMArena Coding15471416
FrontierCode54.6%—
CursorBench57.8%—
LMArena WebDev1813—
FrontierSWE62.3%—
WeirdML—29.8%
MirrorCode77.4%—
ALE-Bench2,147—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.8 (#82)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
APEX-Agents73.5%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41.4%
GDP.pdf30.6%—
Vending-Bench 29,235—

Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 22.2 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
CritPt31.7%0.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts15351398
DTBench98.9%69.3%
LMCA68.2%22.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index167.33139.63
ARC-AGI-293.3%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
NYT Connections (extended)88.5%—
ARC-AGI-198.5%—
Chess Puzzles—8%
EBR-Bench71.4%—
Mystery Game Puzzles71%—

Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.4 (#157)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%70.3%
LMArena Math15061394
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)91.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 495%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—47.8%
ProofBench100%—
FrontierMath Erdős2.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.8 (#105)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
GPQA Diamond90.6%70.1%
LMArena Expert15471396
SimpleQA Verified72.2%—
Confabulations—12.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), Qwen3-30B-A3B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Vision1321—
Blueprint-Bench 251.2%—
Furniture Assembly83.3%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.5 (#132)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Non-English15071372
LMArena Chinese15881433
LMArena French15141418
LMArena Russian15201370
LMArena Spanish15071404
LMArena German—1380
LMArena Japanese—1337
LMArena Korean—1331

Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.0 (#142)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following15371363

Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#283)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Longer Query15321379
Fiction.LiveBench—40.6%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.6 (#143)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Text15151384
LMArena Creative Writing15331317
LMArena Multi-Turn14991378
Short-Story Creative Writing—75.3%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2050—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 37× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.

Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 37.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 5.5 does, with 1M tokens against 41K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper