o3-mini vs Qwen3 30B A3B
Wins 5 of 6 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
o3-mini is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3 30B A3B is cheaper.
Scores updated · 18 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 thinking20o3-mini2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software20o3-mini2 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up10o3-mini1 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10o3-mini1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10o3-mini1 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 30B A3B costs 82% 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 o3-mini pulls ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+25.6points ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+15.7points ahead
- Code for real scientific research problemsSciCode+14.3points ahead
Where Qwen3 30B A3B pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 18 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
Codingo3-mini
- SciCodeo3-mini by 14.342.828.5+14.3
- Terminal-Bench Hardo3-mini by 3.86.12.3+3.8
Reasoningo3-mini
- GPQA Diamondo3-mini by 15.777.361.6+15.7
- Humanity's Last Examo3-mini by 5.8126.2+5.8
- CritPttie0.30tie
Factso3-mini
- AA-Omniscience · Accuracyo3-mini by 5.121.316.2+5.1
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationtie18.919.3tie
Other results8 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.
- AIME 2025Qwen3 30B A3B by 22.648.370.9+22.6
- HMMT Feb. 2025Qwen3 30B A3B by 22.528.350.8+22.5
- LiveCodeBencho3-mini by 15.177.762.6+15.1
- LiveBencho3-mini by 10.384.674.3+10.3
- AA-Omniscienceo3-mini by 8.9-42.6-51.5+8.9
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)o3-mini by 5.331.326+5.3
- AA Intelligenceo3-mini by 3.4117.6+3.4
- Artificial Analysis Coding Indexo3-mini by 316.313.3+3
Questions people ask
Which is better, o3-mini or Qwen3 30B A3B?
o3-mini wins five of the six areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, facts, long documents and following instructions. Qwen3 30B A3B wins none, but costs 82% less. They are level on agents.
Which is better for coding?
o3-mini. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Qwen3 30B A3B wins none.
Which is cheaper?
o3-mini costs $1.10 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3 30B A3B costs $0.20 and $0.80. That makes Qwen3 30B A3B about 82% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 18 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 8 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.