Claude Sonnet 4 vs Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct
Wins 5 of 6 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Claude Sonnet 4 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct is cheaper.
Scores updated · 16 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking20Claude Sonnet 42 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude Sonnet 42 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude Sonnet 42 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Sonnet 41 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Claude Sonnet 41 of 1 test
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own00Even0 each · 1 tie
Agents, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct costs 85% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Sonnet 4 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+51.2points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+37.6points ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+26.1points ahead
Where Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 16 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Sonnet 4
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Sonnet 4 by 15.931.115.2+15.9
- SciCodeClaude Sonnet 4 by 12.24027.8+12.2
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4
- GPQA DiamondClaude Sonnet 4 by 26.177.751.6+26.1
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Sonnet 4 by 6.910.73.8+6.9
- CritPttie0.30tie
FactsClaude Sonnet 4
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Sonnet 4 by 51.270.919.7+51.2
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Sonnet 4 by 6.322.716.4+6.3
Following instructionsClaude Sonnet 4
- IFBenchClaude Sonnet 4 by 2254.732.7+22
Other results6 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Sonnet 4 by 50.90.2-50.7+50.9
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude Sonnet 4 by 30.164.634.5+30.1
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Sonnet 4 by 18.237.619.4+18.2
- swe_bench_lite (Scaffolded (agent harness))Claude Sonnet 4 by 13.358.345+13.3
- AA IntelligenceClaude Sonnet 4 by 9.318.99.6+9.3
- AA Agentic IndexQwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct by 3.517.621.1+3.5
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4 or Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct?
Claude Sonnet 4 wins five of the six areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, facts, long documents and following instructions. Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct wins none, but costs 85% less. They are level on agents.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 4. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Sonnet 4 costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct costs $0.45 and $2.25. That makes Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct about 85% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 16 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 10 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 6 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.