Qwen3 30B A3B vs Qwen3 32B
Wins 1 of 6 areas
Following instructions
Wins 2 of 6 areas
Coding · Reasoning
Qwen3 32B wins more areas, narrowly.Qwen3 30B A3B is better at following instructions.
Scores updated · 19 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 thinking02Qwen3 32B2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software01Qwen3 32B1 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Qwen3 30B A3B1 of 1 test
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own00Even0 each · 1 tie
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
- 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.
Qwen3 32B costs 20% 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 Qwen3 32B pulls ahead
- Code for real scientific research problemsSciCode+7.5points ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+5.2points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+1.2points ahead
Where Qwen3 30B A3B pulls ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+5.2points ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+1.4points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 19 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
ReasoningQwen3 32B
- GPQA DiamondQwen3 32B by 5.261.666.8+5.2
- Humanity's Last ExamQwen3 32B by 1.26.27.4+1.2
- CritPttie00.3tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3 30B A3B by 1.419.317.9+1.4
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyQwen3 32B by 1.216.217.4+1.2
Following instructionsQwen3 30B A3B
- IFBenchQwen3 30B A3B by 5.241.536.3+5.2
Other results9 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)Qwen3 32B by 3.82629.8+3.8
- LiveCodeBenchQwen3 32B by 3.162.665.7+3.1
- Arena HardQwen3 32B by 2.89193.8+2.8
- AIME 2025Qwen3 32B by 270.972.9+2
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexQwen3 32B by 213.315.3+2
- BFCLv4Qwen3 32B by 1.269.170.3+1.2
- AA-OmniscienceQwen3 32B by 1.1-51.5-50.4+1.1
- AA IntelligenceQwen3 32B by 17.68.6+1
- LiveBenchtie74.374.9tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Qwen3 30B A3B or Qwen3 32B?
Qwen3 32B wins two of the six areas where both have results: coding and reasoning. Qwen3 30B A3B wins following instructions. They are level on agents, facts and long documents.
Which is better for coding?
Qwen3 32B. It wins 1 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Qwen3 30B A3B wins none, and 1 is a tie.
Which is cheaper?
Qwen3 30B A3B costs $0.20 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B costs $0.16 and $0.64. That makes Qwen3 32B about 20% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 19 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 9 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.