Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking vs Seed Oss 36B Instruct
Wins 1 of 6 areas
Following instructions
Wins 4 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts
Seed Oss 36B Instruct is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking is better at following instructions.
Scores updated · 17 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.
- CodingWriting and fixing software03Seed Oss 36B Instruct3 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking01Seed Oss 36B Instruct1 of 3 tests · 2 ties
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up01Seed Oss 36B Instruct1 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own01Seed Oss 36B Instruct1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking1 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts00Even0 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.
Seed Oss 36B Instruct costs 70% 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 Seed Oss 36B Instruct pulls ahead
- Code for real scientific research problemsSciCode+3.5points ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+1.9points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+1.9points ahead
Where Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking pulls ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+8.8points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 17 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingSeed Oss 36B Instruct
- SciCodeSeed Oss 36B Instruct by 3.53336.5+3.5
- Terminal-Bench HardSeed Oss 36B Instruct by 1.55.36.8+1.5
- LiveCodeBench v6Seed Oss 36B Instruct by 1.46667.4+1.4
ReasoningSeed Oss 36B Instruct
- GPQA DiamondSeed Oss 36B Instruct by 1.970.772.6+1.9
- Humanity's Last Examtie10.39.9tie
- CritPttie0.30tie
FactsSeed Oss 36B Instruct
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracySeed Oss 36B Instruct by 1.916.318.2+1.9
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationtie13.513.6tie
Following instructionsQwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking
- IFBenchQwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking by 8.850.741.9+8.8
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.
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Seed Oss 36B Instruct by 21.328.149.4+21.3
- IFEvalQwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking by 590.885.8+5
- AA-OmniscienceSeed Oss 36B Instruct by 3.6-56.1-52.5+3.6
- AA IntelligenceSeed Oss 36B Instruct by 2.39.812.1+2.3
- MMLU-Protie81.982.7tie
- AIME 2025tie8584.7tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking or Seed Oss 36B Instruct?
Seed Oss 36B Instruct wins four of the six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning and facts. Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking wins following instructions. They are level on long documents.
Which is better for coding?
Seed Oss 36B Instruct. It wins 3 of the 3 coding tests both models report; Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking costs $0.20 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; Seed Oss 36B Instruct costs $0.21 and $0.57. That makes Seed Oss 36B Instruct about 70% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 17 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 11 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.